Posts
In Freedom from Want, Edward Gresser argues that free trade
is good for other countries, such as Cambodia, since it provides them
with jobs. In reading Pat Buchanan's pro-protectionist book, The Great Betrayal, I've wondered how Buchanan addresses the impact of free trade or protectionism on other countries. Essentially,
Buchanan says that we should look out for our own----but he's not
particularly racist in making that argument, as he has been accused of
being when it comes to other things that he has said and written.
Rather, Buchanan says that we should look out for the African-Americans
and Hispanic Americans who are already citizens of the U.S.
Moreover, appealing to Booker T. Washington, Buchanan says that it's
wrong to give American jobs to immigrants (particularly illegal
immigrants) rather than the African-Americans who are already here.
On one occasion in my latest reading, Buchanan does demonstrate compassion for the Mexicans. He
says that many Mexicans were hurt when their peso was devalued in order
to give Mexico a trade surplus, for that lessened the value of their
money.
On an unrelated note, what policies does Buchanan
support when it comes to protectionism? Does he want to slap a huge
tariff on imported goods, which many think would be disastrous because
of how interconnected the world's economies are? Buchanan on
page 298 expresses support for a gradual revenue tariff: "The tariff
could be imposed in stages: 5 percent immediately, 5 percent in six
months, the final 5 percent a year later, giving merchants eighteen
months to adjust."
Another point Buchanan made that I found pretty cool----even though I cannot find it right now----is
that other countries would continue to export their products to the
United States, even if we had a higher tariff. The reason is that we're
a good customer base for their products, and they'd make more money
exporting to us even when a tariff were added, than they would make not
selling their stuff to us at all. This, in my opinion,
highlights a contradiction in protectionist thought: protectionists want
tariffs to encourage us to buy American and to rebuild the American
manufacturing base, and yet they also want us to buy foreign goods
because the tariffs can generate revenue for the federal
government----and more right-wing protectionists argue that this would
result in a lower tax burden on Americans.
Showing posts with label Freedom from Want. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedom from Want. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Monday, October 15, 2012
The Great Betrayal 8
In my latest reading of The Great Betrayal: How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy,
Pat Buchanan argues that the time when the United States was
protectionist----the late 1860's to 1900----was a time of economic
growth, a reduction in the national debt, a fall in commodity prices, a
rise in real wages, a growth in exports, and an increase in industrial
production that rivaled that of Great Britain. As sources, Buchanan
cites Ravi Batra's The Myth of Free Trade, Alfred Eckes, Jr.'s Opening America's Market, and John Steele Gordon's Hamilton's Blessing, but, for his claim regarding the increase in the Gross Domestic Product and real wages, he mentions the Historical Statistics of the United States.
Moreover, when Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge restored protectionism, Buchanan contends, there was an increase in manufacturing output, and taxes on Americans were reduced, even as revenue increased. Buchanan also notes that the distribution of the tax burden became more progressive in the 1920's. Buchanan cites the book Nation of Nations, David Alderoft's From Versailles to Wall Street, 1919-1929, and Gordon's Hamilton's Blessing.
I decided to take a second look at how Edward Gresser----a proponent of free trade----discusses these time periods in his book, Freedom from Want. As far as I could see, Gresser does not interact with the statistics that Buchanan cites. Rather, Gresser quotes critics of protectionism during the nineteenth century, who held that high tariffs penalized the poor and southern farmers on account of high prices (in the case of small farmers, the high prices were for machinery that they needed), and he says that Harding's protectionism left America's World War I allies in a state of economic wreck after the war, which Gresser seems to think was rather cold on his part.
One point that Gresser makes in his book is that free trade helps poorer nations, such as Cambodia. Buchanan states regarding the protectionist President William McKinley, however, that McKinley did not write his tariff bill to prosper South America (an area that someone back then brought up), for the U.S. was his concern, not the rest of the world (page 214). I find that sentiment to be rather cold, to tell you the truth. But I still think that Buchanan's argument about economic growth coinciding with protectionism deserves serious consideration.
Moreover, when Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge restored protectionism, Buchanan contends, there was an increase in manufacturing output, and taxes on Americans were reduced, even as revenue increased. Buchanan also notes that the distribution of the tax burden became more progressive in the 1920's. Buchanan cites the book Nation of Nations, David Alderoft's From Versailles to Wall Street, 1919-1929, and Gordon's Hamilton's Blessing.
I decided to take a second look at how Edward Gresser----a proponent of free trade----discusses these time periods in his book, Freedom from Want. As far as I could see, Gresser does not interact with the statistics that Buchanan cites. Rather, Gresser quotes critics of protectionism during the nineteenth century, who held that high tariffs penalized the poor and southern farmers on account of high prices (in the case of small farmers, the high prices were for machinery that they needed), and he says that Harding's protectionism left America's World War I allies in a state of economic wreck after the war, which Gresser seems to think was rather cold on his part.
One point that Gresser makes in his book is that free trade helps poorer nations, such as Cambodia. Buchanan states regarding the protectionist President William McKinley, however, that McKinley did not write his tariff bill to prosper South America (an area that someone back then brought up), for the U.S. was his concern, not the rest of the world (page 214). I find that sentiment to be rather cold, to tell you the truth. But I still think that Buchanan's argument about economic growth coinciding with protectionism deserves serious consideration.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
The Great Betrayal 6
When I was reading Edward Gresser's Freedom from Want, which was a defense of free trade, one
question that I was hoping Gresser would answer is whether or not free
trade has contributed to the stagnation of wages in the U.S., due to
cheaper goods pouring into the U.S. from other countries.
Gresser argued that free trade has resulted in more jobs in the U.S. and
also that exports have gone up, but (as far as I could see) he did not
comment on American wages.
In reading The Great Betrayal, which is Pat Buchanan's defense of protectionism, one question that I am hoping Buchanan will answer is whether or not protectionism leads to higher prices for American consumers, as free traders contend that it does.
Buchanan has touched some on this question in my reading thus far, but I hope that he'll do so in more detail as the book progresses. First of all, on page 51, Buchanan states: "Here is another fallacy of free-trade theory: what's best for its consumers is best for a country." That seems to imply that, just because free trade allows American consumers to buy a bunch of cheap foreign goods, which benefits them because it allows them to stretch a buck, that doesn't mean that free trade is beneficial to the U.S., for it makes the U.S. dependent on other countries as well as undermines American manufacturing.
Second, on page 161, Buchanan mentions Abraham Lincoln's argument that "protecting home manufactures, in the long run, produced lower prices" (Buchanan's words on page 161). I wish that Buchanan explained Lincoln's rationale for this in more detail, but what I got was this: In Lincoln's time, "shipping expenses added 25-50 percent to the price of goods" (page 161). For Lincoln, those goods could easily be manufactured in the United States of America----with "good quality", "sufficient quantity", and little labor (Lincoln's words).
Third, on page 177, Buchanan is refuting the free trader portrayal of Adam Smith as an absolutist when it comes to free trade. According to Buchanan, one of Smith's arguments was consistent with later attempts by the Union during the Civil War to increase tariffs in order to "offset taxes on American manufacturers" (page 177). The more revenue that the government gets through tariffs, the argument may run, the less that it has to get from taxing American businesses. And, while Buchanan does not say this, perhaps one could argue that this would result in lower prices, since American manufacturers are not passing the cost of taxes onto their consumers.
Am I satisfied? Not entirely. I still think that protectionism results in higher prices. If a tariff increases the price of foreign goods, my hunch is that American manufacturers will charge only a slightly lower price than that of the foreign goods plus the tariff. The reason is that businesses try to get by with making as much as they can, while still being competitive, so they won't lower prices more than they have to. But suppose there is no tariff, and cheap foreign goods flow into the U.S. In that case, there will be more pressure on U.S. manufacturers to offer cheap goods themselves to stay afloat (which may be hard for them). In short, I think that the prices of American and foreign goods would be higher for American consumers when there is a tariff, than they would be without a tariff. And, regarding the argument that, in Lincoln's time, there were high shipping costs that made foreign goods more expensive, the fact is that protectionists wanted tariffs to protect U.S. industry from foreign competition----and foreign competitors were competitive precisely because they could offer lower prices for their products than what U.S. industries were offering.
But perhaps Lincoln was hoping that, as more Americans bought American goods, that would increase American productivity, which would result in a greater supply of American goods and thus lower prices. Maybe. But I still don't think the prices would be as low as they would be if a massive amount of cheap foreign goods were entering the American marketplace and competing with American goods.
One thing that has been in the back of my mind as I have read Gresser and Buchanan is this: Protectionists want tariffs because that encourages Americans to buy American and thus saves American jobs. But, on some level, protectionists are also hoping that Americans will still buy foreign goods, since doing so enables tariffs to flow into the U.S. treasury as revenue for the government. This looks rather contradictory, to be honest with you. Interestingly, in my latest reading, Buchanan mentioned a Laffer Curve when it comes to tariffs: if tariffs are too high, then people won't buy as many foreign goods, and that means that less revenue from tariffs will flow into the U.S. treasury.
In reading The Great Betrayal, which is Pat Buchanan's defense of protectionism, one question that I am hoping Buchanan will answer is whether or not protectionism leads to higher prices for American consumers, as free traders contend that it does.
Buchanan has touched some on this question in my reading thus far, but I hope that he'll do so in more detail as the book progresses. First of all, on page 51, Buchanan states: "Here is another fallacy of free-trade theory: what's best for its consumers is best for a country." That seems to imply that, just because free trade allows American consumers to buy a bunch of cheap foreign goods, which benefits them because it allows them to stretch a buck, that doesn't mean that free trade is beneficial to the U.S., for it makes the U.S. dependent on other countries as well as undermines American manufacturing.
Second, on page 161, Buchanan mentions Abraham Lincoln's argument that "protecting home manufactures, in the long run, produced lower prices" (Buchanan's words on page 161). I wish that Buchanan explained Lincoln's rationale for this in more detail, but what I got was this: In Lincoln's time, "shipping expenses added 25-50 percent to the price of goods" (page 161). For Lincoln, those goods could easily be manufactured in the United States of America----with "good quality", "sufficient quantity", and little labor (Lincoln's words).
Third, on page 177, Buchanan is refuting the free trader portrayal of Adam Smith as an absolutist when it comes to free trade. According to Buchanan, one of Smith's arguments was consistent with later attempts by the Union during the Civil War to increase tariffs in order to "offset taxes on American manufacturers" (page 177). The more revenue that the government gets through tariffs, the argument may run, the less that it has to get from taxing American businesses. And, while Buchanan does not say this, perhaps one could argue that this would result in lower prices, since American manufacturers are not passing the cost of taxes onto their consumers.
Am I satisfied? Not entirely. I still think that protectionism results in higher prices. If a tariff increases the price of foreign goods, my hunch is that American manufacturers will charge only a slightly lower price than that of the foreign goods plus the tariff. The reason is that businesses try to get by with making as much as they can, while still being competitive, so they won't lower prices more than they have to. But suppose there is no tariff, and cheap foreign goods flow into the U.S. In that case, there will be more pressure on U.S. manufacturers to offer cheap goods themselves to stay afloat (which may be hard for them). In short, I think that the prices of American and foreign goods would be higher for American consumers when there is a tariff, than they would be without a tariff. And, regarding the argument that, in Lincoln's time, there were high shipping costs that made foreign goods more expensive, the fact is that protectionists wanted tariffs to protect U.S. industry from foreign competition----and foreign competitors were competitive precisely because they could offer lower prices for their products than what U.S. industries were offering.
But perhaps Lincoln was hoping that, as more Americans bought American goods, that would increase American productivity, which would result in a greater supply of American goods and thus lower prices. Maybe. But I still don't think the prices would be as low as they would be if a massive amount of cheap foreign goods were entering the American marketplace and competing with American goods.
One thing that has been in the back of my mind as I have read Gresser and Buchanan is this: Protectionists want tariffs because that encourages Americans to buy American and thus saves American jobs. But, on some level, protectionists are also hoping that Americans will still buy foreign goods, since doing so enables tariffs to flow into the U.S. treasury as revenue for the government. This looks rather contradictory, to be honest with you. Interestingly, in my latest reading, Buchanan mentioned a Laffer Curve when it comes to tariffs: if tariffs are too high, then people won't buy as many foreign goods, and that means that less revenue from tariffs will flow into the U.S. treasury.
Friday, October 12, 2012
The Great Betrayal 5
In my latest reading of The Great Betrayal: How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy, Pat Buchanan talks about protectionism in antebellum America.
In the early days of the American republic, Buchanan argues, there was a tendency towards protectionism because prominent founders wanted for the United States to be self-sufficient and independent. The reason was that they had seen what had happened when the thirteen colonies were dependent on the British for certain goods----they could be negatively impacted when Britain imposed high taxes on goods that it shipped to the thirteen colonies!
Like Edward Gresser in Freedom from Want, Buchanan portrays Thomas Jefferson as a free-trader. Unlike Gresser, however, Buchanan maintains that Jefferson became a protectionist after seeing the pitfalls to relying on other nations such as Britain and France for goods, and Buchanan also presents Jefferson's free-trade stage as a time of naievity. At the same time, Buchanan notes an ideological motivation for Jefferson's commitment to free-trade: Jefferson wanted an agrarian nation rather than a manufacturing one.
According to Buchanan, Jefferson's agrarian motivation for supporting free trade was taken up by others. There were southerners who wanted to trade with other countries, and they resented the tariffs. One reason was that, like Jefferson, they wanted an agrarian nation, and one southerner even contrasted an agrarian culture with the dirtiness and pollution that comes with manufacturing. (Buchanan remarks that this sentiment was similar to that of environmentalism!) Another reason was that the southerners wanted to trade with people who actually bought their products (i.e., cotton, tobacco, and rice). Foreigners like the British bought southern products. By and large, according to Buchanan, the North did not. (But I wonder: Wouldn't the North need southern cotton for the textile industry?)
In the early days of the American republic, Buchanan argues, there was a tendency towards protectionism because prominent founders wanted for the United States to be self-sufficient and independent. The reason was that they had seen what had happened when the thirteen colonies were dependent on the British for certain goods----they could be negatively impacted when Britain imposed high taxes on goods that it shipped to the thirteen colonies!
Like Edward Gresser in Freedom from Want, Buchanan portrays Thomas Jefferson as a free-trader. Unlike Gresser, however, Buchanan maintains that Jefferson became a protectionist after seeing the pitfalls to relying on other nations such as Britain and France for goods, and Buchanan also presents Jefferson's free-trade stage as a time of naievity. At the same time, Buchanan notes an ideological motivation for Jefferson's commitment to free-trade: Jefferson wanted an agrarian nation rather than a manufacturing one.
According to Buchanan, Jefferson's agrarian motivation for supporting free trade was taken up by others. There were southerners who wanted to trade with other countries, and they resented the tariffs. One reason was that, like Jefferson, they wanted an agrarian nation, and one southerner even contrasted an agrarian culture with the dirtiness and pollution that comes with manufacturing. (Buchanan remarks that this sentiment was similar to that of environmentalism!) Another reason was that the southerners wanted to trade with people who actually bought their products (i.e., cotton, tobacco, and rice). Foreigners like the British bought southern products. By and large, according to Buchanan, the North did not. (But I wonder: Wouldn't the North need southern cotton for the textile industry?)
Thursday, October 11, 2012
The Great Betrayal 4
I have three items for my write-up today on Pat Buchanan's The Great Betrayal: How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy.
1. A couple of times in this book, Pat Buchanan, a conservative, seeks to justify protectionism on socially conservative grounds. Because wages in the U.S. have stagnated, Buchanan argues, married women with children have had to enter the labor force, and the result of that has been "falling birthrates and rising delinquency[,] teenage drug use, alcohol abuse, promiscuity, illegitimacy[,] abortions----and...the high divorce rate among working parents" (page 113). Feminists such as Susan Faludi would probably question this argument, even though they would most likely agree with Buchanan that the stagnation of wages is a problem.
2. On page 112, Buchanan has a chart entitled "Average Weekly Earnings, 1960-95 (in 1982 Dollars)", and his source for the information in that chart is the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. According to the chart, from 1960 to 1970, weekly earnings dramatically went up. They went down a bit from 1970 to 1975, then they went up slightly from 1975 to around 1978. From around 1978 to around 1983, they really tanked. There was a slight bump from around 1983 to 1985. From 1985 to 1995, there was a decline. My question is this: Can this decline be blamed on free trade? John F. Kennedy had free trade policies that Lyndon Johnson held fast to, and weekly earnings went up during that time. Ronald Reagan had free trade policies, but Buchanan lauds some things that Reagan did that were protectionist. Under Reagan, though, weekly earnings declined.
3. Buchanan talks about a desire among some within the elites to erase national borders. At one point, he refers to Strobe Talbott's vision that "all states will recognize a single, global authority" (Talbott's words, quoted on page 106). I have two questions. First of all, if Buchanan is against the elimination of nations, then why on page 113 does he criticize Welsh and Scottish nationalism and ethnic politics? I realize that he thinks that there are people who are more loyal to their ethnic group than to their country, but doesn't ethnic pride contradict the drive towards the new world order that Buchanan criticizes? Second, could a one world government actually eliminate some of the problems with free trade that Buchanan talks about? Currently, companies leave the U.S. because they can pay overseas workers more cheaply, and the wages that are paid to overseas workers provide the workers with a fairly decent standard of living (at least according to Edward Gresser). But would the disparity between wages here and wages overseas exist if the world had a single currency? And would overseas companies be able to take advantage of other countries' loose regulations (as compared to what the U.S. has) and out-compete U.S. companies if the entire world had the same regulations?
1. A couple of times in this book, Pat Buchanan, a conservative, seeks to justify protectionism on socially conservative grounds. Because wages in the U.S. have stagnated, Buchanan argues, married women with children have had to enter the labor force, and the result of that has been "falling birthrates and rising delinquency[,] teenage drug use, alcohol abuse, promiscuity, illegitimacy[,] abortions----and...the high divorce rate among working parents" (page 113). Feminists such as Susan Faludi would probably question this argument, even though they would most likely agree with Buchanan that the stagnation of wages is a problem.
2. On page 112, Buchanan has a chart entitled "Average Weekly Earnings, 1960-95 (in 1982 Dollars)", and his source for the information in that chart is the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. According to the chart, from 1960 to 1970, weekly earnings dramatically went up. They went down a bit from 1970 to 1975, then they went up slightly from 1975 to around 1978. From around 1978 to around 1983, they really tanked. There was a slight bump from around 1983 to 1985. From 1985 to 1995, there was a decline. My question is this: Can this decline be blamed on free trade? John F. Kennedy had free trade policies that Lyndon Johnson held fast to, and weekly earnings went up during that time. Ronald Reagan had free trade policies, but Buchanan lauds some things that Reagan did that were protectionist. Under Reagan, though, weekly earnings declined.
3. Buchanan talks about a desire among some within the elites to erase national borders. At one point, he refers to Strobe Talbott's vision that "all states will recognize a single, global authority" (Talbott's words, quoted on page 106). I have two questions. First of all, if Buchanan is against the elimination of nations, then why on page 113 does he criticize Welsh and Scottish nationalism and ethnic politics? I realize that he thinks that there are people who are more loyal to their ethnic group than to their country, but doesn't ethnic pride contradict the drive towards the new world order that Buchanan criticizes? Second, could a one world government actually eliminate some of the problems with free trade that Buchanan talks about? Currently, companies leave the U.S. because they can pay overseas workers more cheaply, and the wages that are paid to overseas workers provide the workers with a fairly decent standard of living (at least according to Edward Gresser). But would the disparity between wages here and wages overseas exist if the world had a single currency? And would overseas companies be able to take advantage of other countries' loose regulations (as compared to what the U.S. has) and out-compete U.S. companies if the entire world had the same regulations?
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
The Great Betrayal 3
I have three items for today's write-up on Pat Buchanan's The Great Betrayal: How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy.
1. Edward Gresser argues in Freedom from Want that free trade leads to peace, since people are less likely to attack those with whom they trade. One thought that was in my mind, which I did not share, was this: Why couldn't a country attack a country with which it has a trading relationship? Then, it could just plunder the other country's resources, without having to give something of its own to receive them. There may be something to my thought, but I should also remember that it may cost a country money and resources to conquer and rule another country, and so perhaps trade is better than conquest.
Pat Buchanan disputes the mantra that free trade leads to peace, as he notes examples to the contrary. Britain engaged in free trade in the nineteenth century, yet it was involved in numerous wars. The United States was a free-trade zone, but that didn't stop the Civil War. In 1914, Germany attacked Russia, which bought a lot of German goods, and Great Britain declared war on its customer Germany. In the 1930's, Japan attacked China and the U.S., though it traded with them. Hitler invaded Stalinist Russia, a huge source of "food, oil, and raw materials" for Germany (page 61).
2. One question that is in my mind as I read critiques of free trade is this: Why don't all American manufacturing companies move overseas, if it's so much to their advantage to do so? The fact is that they don't, for there are still manufacturing plants in the U.S. Buchanan, at least in my latest reading, does not answer this question head-on, but he does mention advantages for companies that stay in the United States: more productive labor, and also better equipment. (But why couldn't companies take that better equipment overseas?) The reason, according to Buchanan, that companies move overseas is that it's cheaper, since the workers can be paid less. Buchanan (a conservative) also takes a swipe at big government policies that (according to him) oppress companies in the U.S. and encourage them to outsource.
3. This third item is actually not from my latest reading, but from a previous reading. Why does Buchanan think that it's better for the U.S. to have manufacturing jobs as opposed to a large number of service jobs? On page 58, Buchanan states:
"Manufacturing is the key to national power. Not only does it pay more than service industries but the rates of productivity growth are higher and the potential of new industry arising is far greater. From radio came television, VCRs and flat-panel screens. From adding machines came calculators and computers. From the electric typewriter came the word processor. Research and development follows manufacturing."
For Buchanan, manufacturing generates research and development, which coincides with economic growth. I think that it's also important to recall what Arianna Huffington said: we need manufacturing jobs because how can we export stuff if we're not producing it?
1. Edward Gresser argues in Freedom from Want that free trade leads to peace, since people are less likely to attack those with whom they trade. One thought that was in my mind, which I did not share, was this: Why couldn't a country attack a country with which it has a trading relationship? Then, it could just plunder the other country's resources, without having to give something of its own to receive them. There may be something to my thought, but I should also remember that it may cost a country money and resources to conquer and rule another country, and so perhaps trade is better than conquest.
Pat Buchanan disputes the mantra that free trade leads to peace, as he notes examples to the contrary. Britain engaged in free trade in the nineteenth century, yet it was involved in numerous wars. The United States was a free-trade zone, but that didn't stop the Civil War. In 1914, Germany attacked Russia, which bought a lot of German goods, and Great Britain declared war on its customer Germany. In the 1930's, Japan attacked China and the U.S., though it traded with them. Hitler invaded Stalinist Russia, a huge source of "food, oil, and raw materials" for Germany (page 61).
2. One question that is in my mind as I read critiques of free trade is this: Why don't all American manufacturing companies move overseas, if it's so much to their advantage to do so? The fact is that they don't, for there are still manufacturing plants in the U.S. Buchanan, at least in my latest reading, does not answer this question head-on, but he does mention advantages for companies that stay in the United States: more productive labor, and also better equipment. (But why couldn't companies take that better equipment overseas?) The reason, according to Buchanan, that companies move overseas is that it's cheaper, since the workers can be paid less. Buchanan (a conservative) also takes a swipe at big government policies that (according to him) oppress companies in the U.S. and encourage them to outsource.
3. This third item is actually not from my latest reading, but from a previous reading. Why does Buchanan think that it's better for the U.S. to have manufacturing jobs as opposed to a large number of service jobs? On page 58, Buchanan states:
"Manufacturing is the key to national power. Not only does it pay more than service industries but the rates of productivity growth are higher and the potential of new industry arising is far greater. From radio came television, VCRs and flat-panel screens. From adding machines came calculators and computers. From the electric typewriter came the word processor. Research and development follows manufacturing."
For Buchanan, manufacturing generates research and development, which coincides with economic growth. I think that it's also important to recall what Arianna Huffington said: we need manufacturing jobs because how can we export stuff if we're not producing it?
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
The Great Betrayal 2
There were a variety of points that Pat Buchanan made in my latest reading of The Great Betrayal: How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy:
----Buchanan argues that Japan's economic miracle in the 1960's was due to its protectionist policies, as Japan allowed for domestic development by shielding it from foreign competition. That may be so, but, the way Buchanan tells it, Japan still had some interaction with other countries prior to the economic miracle in the 1960's. Japan imported from the U.S. "mineral fuels and animal and vegetable products", while also exporting a lot (page 31). Could that have set the stage for the economic miracle, by providing Japan with wealth and capital?
----Buchanan believes that there was a negative aftermath to President John F. Kennedy's free-trade policies: a reduction in "America's share of world industrial exports", even as Europe's share was rising; trade deficits; and a decline in American industries, such as radio- and TV-manufacturing, antifriction-bearings, machine-tools, and American automobiles. Buchanan narrates that a number of Republicans supported Kennedy's free-trade policies (except for some stalwarts, like Barry Goldwater), and yet there were many politicians who later wanted a quota system to offset their negative consequences. But President Lyndon Johnson said no.
----In the same way that Edward Gresser in Freedom from Want sought to argue that free trade should be embraced by liberals because it's a liberal value, conservative Pat Buchanan seeks to demonstrate that protectionism is something that has been supported by prominent conservatives. Buchanan acknowledges that President Ronald Reagan pursued free-trade policies----with the shoe industry, for example----and the result of that was a decline in the American shoe industry. But Buchanan notes that Reagan was concerned about the impact of free trade on American workers prior to his conversion to free trade, and that Reagan as President pursued protectionist policies that protected Harley-Davidson and imposed quotas on the import of Japanese cars, resulting in a resurgence of the American automobile industry.
----Like Gresser, Buchanan looks at the trade policies of America's founding fathers. Buchanan notes that America in her early days could have followed the free trade Gospel by sticking with what she was good at----growing tobacco and other products----while importing things that other countries were good at----products from manufacturing. Instead, she built her own manufacturing base, one reason being that she wanted for America to be self-sufficient in terms of developing her own military supplies. And she did not hesitate to use tariffs. When British ships were "dumping goods in U.S. ports to kill the industries begun during the War of 1812...Madison imposed a protective tariff" (page 52).
----Buchanan argues that "free trade" policies in their current form are neither consistent with the free market, nor are they fair. In the aftermath of Kennedy's policies, Europe and Japan had tariffs that inhibited U.S. exports from making the same gains that they themselves were making. There are countries in which the government actually gives their businesses an advantage by subsidizing them, which is not a free market. And there are countries that devalue their own currency, which results in a trade deficit by making our goods in their countries more expensive, even as their goods in our countries somehow become cheaper. (But I don't know how their devaluation of their currency makes their goods cheaper in our countries.)
----Buchanan argues that Japan's economic miracle in the 1960's was due to its protectionist policies, as Japan allowed for domestic development by shielding it from foreign competition. That may be so, but, the way Buchanan tells it, Japan still had some interaction with other countries prior to the economic miracle in the 1960's. Japan imported from the U.S. "mineral fuels and animal and vegetable products", while also exporting a lot (page 31). Could that have set the stage for the economic miracle, by providing Japan with wealth and capital?
----Buchanan believes that there was a negative aftermath to President John F. Kennedy's free-trade policies: a reduction in "America's share of world industrial exports", even as Europe's share was rising; trade deficits; and a decline in American industries, such as radio- and TV-manufacturing, antifriction-bearings, machine-tools, and American automobiles. Buchanan narrates that a number of Republicans supported Kennedy's free-trade policies (except for some stalwarts, like Barry Goldwater), and yet there were many politicians who later wanted a quota system to offset their negative consequences. But President Lyndon Johnson said no.
----In the same way that Edward Gresser in Freedom from Want sought to argue that free trade should be embraced by liberals because it's a liberal value, conservative Pat Buchanan seeks to demonstrate that protectionism is something that has been supported by prominent conservatives. Buchanan acknowledges that President Ronald Reagan pursued free-trade policies----with the shoe industry, for example----and the result of that was a decline in the American shoe industry. But Buchanan notes that Reagan was concerned about the impact of free trade on American workers prior to his conversion to free trade, and that Reagan as President pursued protectionist policies that protected Harley-Davidson and imposed quotas on the import of Japanese cars, resulting in a resurgence of the American automobile industry.
----Like Gresser, Buchanan looks at the trade policies of America's founding fathers. Buchanan notes that America in her early days could have followed the free trade Gospel by sticking with what she was good at----growing tobacco and other products----while importing things that other countries were good at----products from manufacturing. Instead, she built her own manufacturing base, one reason being that she wanted for America to be self-sufficient in terms of developing her own military supplies. And she did not hesitate to use tariffs. When British ships were "dumping goods in U.S. ports to kill the industries begun during the War of 1812...Madison imposed a protective tariff" (page 52).
----Buchanan argues that "free trade" policies in their current form are neither consistent with the free market, nor are they fair. In the aftermath of Kennedy's policies, Europe and Japan had tariffs that inhibited U.S. exports from making the same gains that they themselves were making. There are countries in which the government actually gives their businesses an advantage by subsidizing them, which is not a free market. And there are countries that devalue their own currency, which results in a trade deficit by making our goods in their countries more expensive, even as their goods in our countries somehow become cheaper. (But I don't know how their devaluation of their currency makes their goods cheaper in our countries.)
Monday, October 8, 2012
The Great Betrayal 1
I started Pat Buchanan's The Great Betrayal: How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy.
Buchanan begins his book with a story about a lady who worked at a Fruit of the Loom plant and helped to support her family with the money that she earned from that job, but then the plant closed down. Buchanan then went on to cite statistics about the decline in real family income, the increase in the share of wealth that is held by the top 1 per cent of families, the drop in the percentage of Americans who work in manufacturing, and the increase in the number of people who work at Wal-Mart. This all is in a chapter entitled "The Two Americas", which would later become a phrase that Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards used when talking about poverty. And Buchanan wrote about the top 1 percent a little over a decade before the Occupy Movement, which often refers to the top 1 percent.
Buchanan confessed that he used to be a free-trader, even when Democrats (such as John F. Kennedy) were the ones peddling it, but some in his family confronted him about his position because they saw the devastation that free trade was wrecking on communities----as companies had to close down due to their inability to compete. Now, as Buchanan looks back on the free trade policies of the 1950's-1960's, he questions their rationale. The Eisenhower Administration, for example, heralded free trade as a way to gain allies in the Cold War against Communism, but Buchanan does not think that free trade was even necessary to get countries as allies: after all, many of these countries were already afraid of Communism, and so they were already with us!
In terms of the historical narrative that Buchanan tells, much of it overlaps with what I read in Edward Gresser's pro-free trade book, Freedom from Want. Buchanan, like Gresser, talks about how Woodrow Wilson sought to reduce the tariff yet still wanted an active government, which required revenue, and so Wilson supported an income tax. Buchanan also notes that Republicans for years tended to be the protectionist party, whereas Democrats leaned more towards free trade, a point that Gresser emphasizes in his attempt to portray free trade as a liberal virtue. Buchanan, however, sees nothing virtuous about it, for not only does free trade undermine American companies, but it also challenges American sovereignty, which was why a number of Republicans in the late 1940's opposed the ITO, a body that decades later was resurrected as the WTO.
One difference between Buchanan and Gresser is that Buchanan calls Thomas Jefferson a protectionist, whereas Gresser quoted a statement by Jefferson that supported freer trade. I'll see how Buchanan portrays Jefferson later in the book, but I wouldn't be surprised if Jefferson believed in trade yet did protectionist things. Jefferson had strong ideological beliefs, yet he could be pragmatic. As President, he gave a green light to the Louisiana Purchase, for example, even though he initially thought that he needed to jump through hoops for that to take place.
Buchanan begins his book with a story about a lady who worked at a Fruit of the Loom plant and helped to support her family with the money that she earned from that job, but then the plant closed down. Buchanan then went on to cite statistics about the decline in real family income, the increase in the share of wealth that is held by the top 1 per cent of families, the drop in the percentage of Americans who work in manufacturing, and the increase in the number of people who work at Wal-Mart. This all is in a chapter entitled "The Two Americas", which would later become a phrase that Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards used when talking about poverty. And Buchanan wrote about the top 1 percent a little over a decade before the Occupy Movement, which often refers to the top 1 percent.
Buchanan confessed that he used to be a free-trader, even when Democrats (such as John F. Kennedy) were the ones peddling it, but some in his family confronted him about his position because they saw the devastation that free trade was wrecking on communities----as companies had to close down due to their inability to compete. Now, as Buchanan looks back on the free trade policies of the 1950's-1960's, he questions their rationale. The Eisenhower Administration, for example, heralded free trade as a way to gain allies in the Cold War against Communism, but Buchanan does not think that free trade was even necessary to get countries as allies: after all, many of these countries were already afraid of Communism, and so they were already with us!
In terms of the historical narrative that Buchanan tells, much of it overlaps with what I read in Edward Gresser's pro-free trade book, Freedom from Want. Buchanan, like Gresser, talks about how Woodrow Wilson sought to reduce the tariff yet still wanted an active government, which required revenue, and so Wilson supported an income tax. Buchanan also notes that Republicans for years tended to be the protectionist party, whereas Democrats leaned more towards free trade, a point that Gresser emphasizes in his attempt to portray free trade as a liberal virtue. Buchanan, however, sees nothing virtuous about it, for not only does free trade undermine American companies, but it also challenges American sovereignty, which was why a number of Republicans in the late 1940's opposed the ITO, a body that decades later was resurrected as the WTO.
One difference between Buchanan and Gresser is that Buchanan calls Thomas Jefferson a protectionist, whereas Gresser quoted a statement by Jefferson that supported freer trade. I'll see how Buchanan portrays Jefferson later in the book, but I wouldn't be surprised if Jefferson believed in trade yet did protectionist things. Jefferson had strong ideological beliefs, yet he could be pragmatic. As President, he gave a green light to the Louisiana Purchase, for example, even though he initially thought that he needed to jump through hoops for that to take place.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Freedom from Want 7
I finished Edward Gresser's Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy.
At the present moment, I can't find everything in the book that I want
to write about, so this post won't be well-documented. But I'll do the best that I can writing from memory.
In my latest reading, Gresser presented freer trade as a path to peace in the Middle East. According to Gresser, countries in the Middle East do not trade much with each other, plus high unemployment in that region encourages some in the Middle East to become terrorists. But, according to Gresser, freer trade can foster peace by making countries beneficial to one another, and it can also bring employment to Arab nations. While Gresser acknowledges that Saudi Arabia is a heavy exporter of oil, he says that only a few rich Saudi families profit from that, but enhancing trade in other fields can employ a broader number of people.
In either my latest reading or an earlier reading, Gresser was continuing to argue against the notions that protectionism helps the U.S. economy and that freer trade encourages environmental damage. For the first notion, if I recall correctly, Gresser contends that companies are not helping themselves or the U.S. economy when they hold on to inefficiency and seek to protect themselves from competition. I forget how exactly Gresser supported this claim, but, earlier in the book, he quoted John F. Kennedy's statement that companies seeking to dodge competition "are endangering the profits and jobs of others...and in the long run their own economic well-being because they will suffer from competition in the U.S. inevitably, if not from abroad----for, in order to avoid exertion, they accept paralysis" (Kennedy's words). In short, competition will catch up with companies, even if they seek to avoid it. Regarding the environment, Gresser makes the point that protectionism inhibits the development of environmental-friendly technology by making it more costly.
Near the end of the book, Gresser addresses the question of how to help U.S. workers who lose their jobs. Gresser says that losing one's job is especially hard in the U.S. due to a weak social safety net. In Japan, workers don't lose their health insurance or pension when they lose their jobs, but there are a lot of U.S. workers who lose their health insurance once they become unemployed. I tend to agree with Gresser that free trade can work better when it coexists with certain leftist policies.
Overall, this was a good book. But I wish that Gresser addressed the issue of whether or not globalization pushes down the wages of U.S. workers.
In my latest reading, Gresser presented freer trade as a path to peace in the Middle East. According to Gresser, countries in the Middle East do not trade much with each other, plus high unemployment in that region encourages some in the Middle East to become terrorists. But, according to Gresser, freer trade can foster peace by making countries beneficial to one another, and it can also bring employment to Arab nations. While Gresser acknowledges that Saudi Arabia is a heavy exporter of oil, he says that only a few rich Saudi families profit from that, but enhancing trade in other fields can employ a broader number of people.
In either my latest reading or an earlier reading, Gresser was continuing to argue against the notions that protectionism helps the U.S. economy and that freer trade encourages environmental damage. For the first notion, if I recall correctly, Gresser contends that companies are not helping themselves or the U.S. economy when they hold on to inefficiency and seek to protect themselves from competition. I forget how exactly Gresser supported this claim, but, earlier in the book, he quoted John F. Kennedy's statement that companies seeking to dodge competition "are endangering the profits and jobs of others...and in the long run their own economic well-being because they will suffer from competition in the U.S. inevitably, if not from abroad----for, in order to avoid exertion, they accept paralysis" (Kennedy's words). In short, competition will catch up with companies, even if they seek to avoid it. Regarding the environment, Gresser makes the point that protectionism inhibits the development of environmental-friendly technology by making it more costly.
Near the end of the book, Gresser addresses the question of how to help U.S. workers who lose their jobs. Gresser says that losing one's job is especially hard in the U.S. due to a weak social safety net. In Japan, workers don't lose their health insurance or pension when they lose their jobs, but there are a lot of U.S. workers who lose their health insurance once they become unemployed. I tend to agree with Gresser that free trade can work better when it coexists with certain leftist policies.
Overall, this was a good book. But I wish that Gresser addressed the issue of whether or not globalization pushes down the wages of U.S. workers.
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Freedom from Want 6: The Environment, the Poor
In my latest reading of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy, Gresser critiques the notion that freer trade harms the environment, as well as argues that protectionism can harm the poor.
Regarding the environment, Gresser disagrees with the idea that the World Trade Organization is completely insensitive to environmental concerns, for he refers to a WTO decision that would protect a turtle in waters that were used for fishing and shrimping. Gresser also argues that freer trade could perhaps get the U.S. to become more efficient in producing ethanol. Gresser contends that the U.S. ethanol business remains an infant after twenty-five years. But suppose we started to import cheap ethanol from Brazil, Gresser says. Maybe then we'd get our act together on ethanol, resulting in "cleaner air and lower emissions" (page 156)!
Regarding the poor, Gresser argues that protectionism hurts people in Cambodia, since it discourages Americans from buying its products. What will these vulnerable foreign workers do, if Americans don't buy their products and their company goes out of business? Moreover, Gresser contends that protectionism hurts poor single parents in the U.S., since they depend on cheaper imported goods (i.e., shoes, clothing), and protectionism would drive up the cost of those goods.
Regarding the environment, Gresser disagrees with the idea that the World Trade Organization is completely insensitive to environmental concerns, for he refers to a WTO decision that would protect a turtle in waters that were used for fishing and shrimping. Gresser also argues that freer trade could perhaps get the U.S. to become more efficient in producing ethanol. Gresser contends that the U.S. ethanol business remains an infant after twenty-five years. But suppose we started to import cheap ethanol from Brazil, Gresser says. Maybe then we'd get our act together on ethanol, resulting in "cleaner air and lower emissions" (page 156)!
Regarding the poor, Gresser argues that protectionism hurts people in Cambodia, since it discourages Americans from buying its products. What will these vulnerable foreign workers do, if Americans don't buy their products and their company goes out of business? Moreover, Gresser contends that protectionism hurts poor single parents in the U.S., since they depend on cheaper imported goods (i.e., shoes, clothing), and protectionism would drive up the cost of those goods.
Friday, October 5, 2012
Freedom from Want 5: Jobs and Manufacturing
In my latest reading of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy, Edward
Gresser uses charts to argue against the idea that freer trade results
in fewer American jobs and eviscerates American manufacturing.
The first chart in my latest reading was entitled “Jobs, Imports, and GDP Since 1975″. This chart looks at the years 1975, 1985, 1995, and 2005. (This book was published in 2007, prior to the economic crisis.) It shows that U.S. GDP and private-sector jobs have increased dramatically, even as the unemployment rate has decreased. And this has coincided with an increase in imports and the ratio of imports to the GDP. Gresser gets the job data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the import data from the Bureau of the Census, and the GDP information from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. For Gresser, the number of jobs in the U.S. has increased, even after trade agreements.
The second chart is entitled “Businesses Not Fleeing”. In this chart, Gresser is arguing against the notion that “businesses fled, at least in the mass, to poor countries with weaker labor and environmental laws” (page 124). The chart shows that, from 1960 to 2005, foreign investment in the U.S. has increased dramatically—-and, by “foreign investment”, Gresser seems to mean foreign companies setting up their plants in the United States. The chart also demonstrates that American companies in 1985-2005 spent far more for “factories and offices abroad” in Europe, Canada, and Japan than they did for these things in developing countries. The endnote for this chart cites the following as Gresser’s sources: “Direct investment data from Bureau of Economic Analysis for 2005; October 1986 Survey of Current business for 1985; Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, for 1965.”
The third chart is “Unemployment Falling Since Nafta”, and its point overlaps with that of the first chart, so I’ll move on to the fourth chart, “Stable Manufacturing in the U.S. Economy”. Gresser’s point for this chart is that “Using constant dollars, which adjust for the low and sometimes falling inflation in manufacturing and the high and rising inflation of health and real estate, factories account for more of America’s production in 2006 than they did in 1992″ (page 126). The chart shows that GDP has increased from 1993 to 2005, and that the “Manufacturing Value Added” has increased (from $0.974 in 1993 to $1.537 in 2005). The manufacturing as a percentage of GDP, however, appears more complex: it went from 12.9 percent in 1993, to 13.6 percent in 1995, up to 14.5 percent in 2000, and back down to 13.6 percent in 2005. Gresser’s source for these statistics is the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
The fifth chart is entitled “U.S. Manufacturing in the World”, and it is “measured by value-added”. The point of this chart is that U.S. manufacturing increased between 1993 and 2003—-from 21.4 percent to 23.3 per cent—-which shows that it has remained stable. The U.S. is dramatically outpacing China, and manufacturing went down in Japan and the European Union (yet Japan and the European Union still have high manufacturing rates—-Japan had 18.2 percent in 2003, and the EU had 26.1 percent in that same year). Gresser’s sources here are the UN Industrial Development Organization and the World Bank.
The sixth chart is entitled “U.S. Manufacturing Exports, 1990-2006 (in billions)”, and its claim is that U.S. manufacturing exports increased dramatically between 1990 and 2006. Unfortunately, as far as I can see, Gresser does not cite a source for that.
And yet, Gresser acknowledges that machines are replacing people in American factories. The seventh chart is entitled “The Vanishing Factory Job”, and it shows that the number of manufacturing jobs was lower in 2006 than it was in 1990 (though there was an increase in 1995). I do not see a source for this claim. But the picture that I am getting is that U.S. manufacturing may be increasing, but the number of manufacturing jobs is decreasing due to machines replacing workers, and Gresser states that this is in response to “a challenge from low-cost competitors” (page 146). Gresser acknowledges that this is stressful for laid off workers, especially considering the “weak safety net” in the United States, but he hopes that the U.S. will stay strong by attracting “the most sophisticated industries” through scientific research, and also by higher education.
Another point: On page 127, Gresser states that 95 percent of Americans who lose their jobs do so as gas station attendants, construction workers, secretaries, maids, and “the like”, and this is due to such factors as “recessions, bad management, computers, and robots or superior nearby competitors” (page 127). According to Gresser, trade is not a factor behind most layoffs in the U.S. Gresser in this paragraph cites as sources Gary Hufbauer’s Institute for International Economics Survey, and Kate Bronfenbrenner of Cornell.
One issue that I wish Gresser addressed in my latest reading is the salaries of American jobs: the number of jobs may be increasing, but do they pay a decent wage?
The first chart in my latest reading was entitled “Jobs, Imports, and GDP Since 1975″. This chart looks at the years 1975, 1985, 1995, and 2005. (This book was published in 2007, prior to the economic crisis.) It shows that U.S. GDP and private-sector jobs have increased dramatically, even as the unemployment rate has decreased. And this has coincided with an increase in imports and the ratio of imports to the GDP. Gresser gets the job data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the import data from the Bureau of the Census, and the GDP information from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. For Gresser, the number of jobs in the U.S. has increased, even after trade agreements.
The second chart is entitled “Businesses Not Fleeing”. In this chart, Gresser is arguing against the notion that “businesses fled, at least in the mass, to poor countries with weaker labor and environmental laws” (page 124). The chart shows that, from 1960 to 2005, foreign investment in the U.S. has increased dramatically—-and, by “foreign investment”, Gresser seems to mean foreign companies setting up their plants in the United States. The chart also demonstrates that American companies in 1985-2005 spent far more for “factories and offices abroad” in Europe, Canada, and Japan than they did for these things in developing countries. The endnote for this chart cites the following as Gresser’s sources: “Direct investment data from Bureau of Economic Analysis for 2005; October 1986 Survey of Current business for 1985; Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, for 1965.”
The third chart is “Unemployment Falling Since Nafta”, and its point overlaps with that of the first chart, so I’ll move on to the fourth chart, “Stable Manufacturing in the U.S. Economy”. Gresser’s point for this chart is that “Using constant dollars, which adjust for the low and sometimes falling inflation in manufacturing and the high and rising inflation of health and real estate, factories account for more of America’s production in 2006 than they did in 1992″ (page 126). The chart shows that GDP has increased from 1993 to 2005, and that the “Manufacturing Value Added” has increased (from $0.974 in 1993 to $1.537 in 2005). The manufacturing as a percentage of GDP, however, appears more complex: it went from 12.9 percent in 1993, to 13.6 percent in 1995, up to 14.5 percent in 2000, and back down to 13.6 percent in 2005. Gresser’s source for these statistics is the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
The fifth chart is entitled “U.S. Manufacturing in the World”, and it is “measured by value-added”. The point of this chart is that U.S. manufacturing increased between 1993 and 2003—-from 21.4 percent to 23.3 per cent—-which shows that it has remained stable. The U.S. is dramatically outpacing China, and manufacturing went down in Japan and the European Union (yet Japan and the European Union still have high manufacturing rates—-Japan had 18.2 percent in 2003, and the EU had 26.1 percent in that same year). Gresser’s sources here are the UN Industrial Development Organization and the World Bank.
The sixth chart is entitled “U.S. Manufacturing Exports, 1990-2006 (in billions)”, and its claim is that U.S. manufacturing exports increased dramatically between 1990 and 2006. Unfortunately, as far as I can see, Gresser does not cite a source for that.
And yet, Gresser acknowledges that machines are replacing people in American factories. The seventh chart is entitled “The Vanishing Factory Job”, and it shows that the number of manufacturing jobs was lower in 2006 than it was in 1990 (though there was an increase in 1995). I do not see a source for this claim. But the picture that I am getting is that U.S. manufacturing may be increasing, but the number of manufacturing jobs is decreasing due to machines replacing workers, and Gresser states that this is in response to “a challenge from low-cost competitors” (page 146). Gresser acknowledges that this is stressful for laid off workers, especially considering the “weak safety net” in the United States, but he hopes that the U.S. will stay strong by attracting “the most sophisticated industries” through scientific research, and also by higher education.
Another point: On page 127, Gresser states that 95 percent of Americans who lose their jobs do so as gas station attendants, construction workers, secretaries, maids, and “the like”, and this is due to such factors as “recessions, bad management, computers, and robots or superior nearby competitors” (page 127). According to Gresser, trade is not a factor behind most layoffs in the U.S. Gresser in this paragraph cites as sources Gary Hufbauer’s Institute for International Economics Survey, and Kate Bronfenbrenner of Cornell.
One issue that I wish Gresser addressed in my latest reading is the salaries of American jobs: the number of jobs may be increasing, but do they pay a decent wage?
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Freedom from Want 4: Global Prosperity, the Decline in Unions
I have two items for my write-up today on Edward Gresser's 2007 book, Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy.
1. When I was an undergraduate at DePauw University, I took a Winter-Term course on NAFTA. On the last day of class, our professor unloaded on us a bunch of depressing statistics about global poverty and disparity in wealth, and he said that he felt that he would be negligent as a teacher if he did not share this information with us. The professor then remarked that there are people who argue that globalization is a solution to these problems. He did not comment on whether or not he agreed with that proposition, but I had my doubts that he did.
It's depressing to learn about the evils of the world, and yet it is necessary. I'm not entirely sure what to do in response to racism or global poverty, but it's good for me to be aware of these problems so that I'm at least receptive to doing something.
But back to Gresser's book. Gresser is someone who actually presents globalization as a solution to global poverty. On page 109, he states the following:
"Life is also better in the poor world, though too few recognize it. With obvious and painful exceptions----starving North Korea, AIDS-afflicted southern Africa, the violent Middle East----incomes are rising, life expectancy growing, and conflicts fading throughout the developing world. A Bangladeshi girl, in 1980 could expect 48 years of life; her daughter, born this year, has 63. The World Health Organization finds infant mortality down by two thirds, from fifteen doomed babies to five in every hundred, between 1955 and 2000. Small and technical decisions in big rich countries change lives for the better in poor and desperate places. Contrary to Congressman Frank's fear, child labor is fading: the International Labor Organization, which counted 174 million children working in hazardous conditions in the late 1990s, now finds only 111 million and suggests that Latin America may soon join the rich world as largely free from child labor altogether."
This reminds me of a couple of things. First of all, Gresser's comments on child labor made me think of something that Ayn Rand said, when she was discussing the ills of nineteenth century American capitalism: long hours, low wages, child labor, etc. Ayn Rand essentially argued that capitalism is pretty rough in its early stages, but once it becomes successful in producing more goods and in creating a decent standard of living, its rough elements tend to go away. Second, I thought of George Obama's (brother of Barack) statement to Dinesh D'Souza in 2016 that colonialism actually benefited Kenya, since it industrialized the country (see here). Could free trade be doing the same thing to the developing world: bringing it prosperity and capital, and thereby elevating its standard of living?
There are people who argue that the Third World is actually worse off as a result of globalization----that globalization takes people's land, which they used to grow their crops, and makes them dependent on corporations for their survival. Moreover, regarding colonialism and capitalism, there are stories about how foreign economic interests came into certain countries, plundered their resources, and left their inhabitants in poverty.
2. Is our movement towards free trade responsible for the decline of labor unions in the United States? Gresser argues that this is not necessarily the case, as he notes that unions have declined in construction and retail, jobs that lack foreign competition. Gresser attributes the decline of unions to the loss of union appeal. I have two questions. First of all, why would unions lose their appeal to workers? Wouldn't workers want good wages and benefits, which unions presumably provide? (UPDATE: On page 205, Gresser explains his point about unions losing their appeal. He says that many workers nowadays don't plan to stay at their jobs for a long period of time, but they are there primarily to build their resume, and they are probably planning to go back to school or look for a better job. Consequently, a union system of seniority----which presupposes that a worker will stay at the same company for a long time----does not appeal to them, and they are likely to see union dues as a burden.) Second, could illegal immigration have anything to do with the decline of unions----American workers will accept a non-union job because they need it, and they do not want the employer to give the job to an illegal immigrant, who would work for less pay and no benefits? Does illegal immigration create a situation in which companies don't need unions to attract good workers, since they can hire illegal immigrants?
1. When I was an undergraduate at DePauw University, I took a Winter-Term course on NAFTA. On the last day of class, our professor unloaded on us a bunch of depressing statistics about global poverty and disparity in wealth, and he said that he felt that he would be negligent as a teacher if he did not share this information with us. The professor then remarked that there are people who argue that globalization is a solution to these problems. He did not comment on whether or not he agreed with that proposition, but I had my doubts that he did.
It's depressing to learn about the evils of the world, and yet it is necessary. I'm not entirely sure what to do in response to racism or global poverty, but it's good for me to be aware of these problems so that I'm at least receptive to doing something.
But back to Gresser's book. Gresser is someone who actually presents globalization as a solution to global poverty. On page 109, he states the following:
"Life is also better in the poor world, though too few recognize it. With obvious and painful exceptions----starving North Korea, AIDS-afflicted southern Africa, the violent Middle East----incomes are rising, life expectancy growing, and conflicts fading throughout the developing world. A Bangladeshi girl, in 1980 could expect 48 years of life; her daughter, born this year, has 63. The World Health Organization finds infant mortality down by two thirds, from fifteen doomed babies to five in every hundred, between 1955 and 2000. Small and technical decisions in big rich countries change lives for the better in poor and desperate places. Contrary to Congressman Frank's fear, child labor is fading: the International Labor Organization, which counted 174 million children working in hazardous conditions in the late 1990s, now finds only 111 million and suggests that Latin America may soon join the rich world as largely free from child labor altogether."
This reminds me of a couple of things. First of all, Gresser's comments on child labor made me think of something that Ayn Rand said, when she was discussing the ills of nineteenth century American capitalism: long hours, low wages, child labor, etc. Ayn Rand essentially argued that capitalism is pretty rough in its early stages, but once it becomes successful in producing more goods and in creating a decent standard of living, its rough elements tend to go away. Second, I thought of George Obama's (brother of Barack) statement to Dinesh D'Souza in 2016 that colonialism actually benefited Kenya, since it industrialized the country (see here). Could free trade be doing the same thing to the developing world: bringing it prosperity and capital, and thereby elevating its standard of living?
There are people who argue that the Third World is actually worse off as a result of globalization----that globalization takes people's land, which they used to grow their crops, and makes them dependent on corporations for their survival. Moreover, regarding colonialism and capitalism, there are stories about how foreign economic interests came into certain countries, plundered their resources, and left their inhabitants in poverty.
2. Is our movement towards free trade responsible for the decline of labor unions in the United States? Gresser argues that this is not necessarily the case, as he notes that unions have declined in construction and retail, jobs that lack foreign competition. Gresser attributes the decline of unions to the loss of union appeal. I have two questions. First of all, why would unions lose their appeal to workers? Wouldn't workers want good wages and benefits, which unions presumably provide? (UPDATE: On page 205, Gresser explains his point about unions losing their appeal. He says that many workers nowadays don't plan to stay at their jobs for a long period of time, but they are there primarily to build their resume, and they are probably planning to go back to school or look for a better job. Consequently, a union system of seniority----which presupposes that a worker will stay at the same company for a long time----does not appeal to them, and they are likely to see union dues as a burden.) Second, could illegal immigration have anything to do with the decline of unions----American workers will accept a non-union job because they need it, and they do not want the employer to give the job to an illegal immigrant, who would work for less pay and no benefits? Does illegal immigration create a situation in which companies don't need unions to attract good workers, since they can hire illegal immigrants?
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Freedom from Want 3: Smoot-Hawley, Stimulus, and Austerity
In my latest reading of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy,
Edward Gresser talked about the Smoot-Hawley Act, a protectionist law
that was enacted during the Presidency of Herbert Hoover. Many
defenders of free trade maintain that the Smoot-Hawley Act exasperated
the Great Depression.
Gresser narrates that there was support for Smoot-Hawley because businesses in America feared having to compete with foreigners, who paid their workers less and could thus sell their goods more cheaply. But, as Gresser notes, the Act actually reduced or eliminated tariffs on some items, such as petroleum and coffee. This overlaps with what I was saying yesterday----that there may be things that other countries produce better than us, and so free trade is probably a good thing in those areas. Moreover, it's good to get certain things cheap. I just get scared when American workers have to compete with foreign workers who are paid less to produce the same things that we do, for (in my opinion) that brings down the American standard of living. Apparently, Smoot-Hawley had the same sort of approach towards trade.
But Gresser narrates that Smoot-Hawley became extremely problematic. Smoot-Hawley raised tariffs, and, in a time of deflation, the result was that American consumers did not buy as many imported products. That hurt (and in some cases even devastated) the economies of the countries that were making those products, and so some of them retaliated by not buying American products, which further damaged the U.S. economy. President Franklin Roosevelt tried to repair this situation by making trade agreements with countries on an individual basis, but it was really after World War II that a policy of trade was dramatically launched and that institutions were created (i.e., the World Bank) for that. Franklin Roosevelt supported free trade, not only because of the damage that Smoot-Hawley created, but also because he felt that it could lead to peace (since you're unlikely to attack a nation with which you are trading) and worldwide prosperity.
Gresser also discusses the issue of stimulus vs. austerity, an issue that confronts us today. Gresser says that Japan during the Depression went the stimulus route----which entailed "public works, government loans, [and] mass printing of money"----with the result that "Japan pulled out of the Depression before any other industrial country" (page 81). But Gresser goes on to say that Japan was not "successful enough", for some of its army officers sought to attack China in an attempt to "secure export markets and raw materials for Japan's factories, employment for its farmers, and glory for themselves" (page 82).
Germany, by contrast, went the austerity route, as it remembered "the hyperinflation of the early 1920s" (page 82). Its austerity route included higher taxes, reduced government spending, and balancing the national budget. According to Gresser, this "further depressed the German economy" (page 82).
Gresser narrates that there was support for Smoot-Hawley because businesses in America feared having to compete with foreigners, who paid their workers less and could thus sell their goods more cheaply. But, as Gresser notes, the Act actually reduced or eliminated tariffs on some items, such as petroleum and coffee. This overlaps with what I was saying yesterday----that there may be things that other countries produce better than us, and so free trade is probably a good thing in those areas. Moreover, it's good to get certain things cheap. I just get scared when American workers have to compete with foreign workers who are paid less to produce the same things that we do, for (in my opinion) that brings down the American standard of living. Apparently, Smoot-Hawley had the same sort of approach towards trade.
But Gresser narrates that Smoot-Hawley became extremely problematic. Smoot-Hawley raised tariffs, and, in a time of deflation, the result was that American consumers did not buy as many imported products. That hurt (and in some cases even devastated) the economies of the countries that were making those products, and so some of them retaliated by not buying American products, which further damaged the U.S. economy. President Franklin Roosevelt tried to repair this situation by making trade agreements with countries on an individual basis, but it was really after World War II that a policy of trade was dramatically launched and that institutions were created (i.e., the World Bank) for that. Franklin Roosevelt supported free trade, not only because of the damage that Smoot-Hawley created, but also because he felt that it could lead to peace (since you're unlikely to attack a nation with which you are trading) and worldwide prosperity.
Gresser also discusses the issue of stimulus vs. austerity, an issue that confronts us today. Gresser says that Japan during the Depression went the stimulus route----which entailed "public works, government loans, [and] mass printing of money"----with the result that "Japan pulled out of the Depression before any other industrial country" (page 81). But Gresser goes on to say that Japan was not "successful enough", for some of its army officers sought to attack China in an attempt to "secure export markets and raw materials for Japan's factories, employment for its farmers, and glory for themselves" (page 82).
Germany, by contrast, went the austerity route, as it remembered "the hyperinflation of the early 1920s" (page 82). Its austerity route included higher taxes, reduced government spending, and balancing the national budget. According to Gresser, this "further depressed the German economy" (page 82).
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Freedom from Want 2
In my latest reading of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy, Edward Gresser talked some about the history of trade and protectionism.
Gresser made the point that trade is good because other countries make some things better and more efficiently than we do, and we make some things better than other countries, so it's beneficial to all sides to let them stick with what they're good at and to trade. Moreover, according to Gresser, protectionism makes foreign goods more expensive, with the result that consumers have less money to spend on other goods, thereby hurting the economy. Gresser also points to places that tried to be self-sufficient and to cut themselves off from the outside world----Sparta, North Korea, etc.----and he believes that we should not want to be like them. I'd like to see better arguments for why a country should not try to be self-sufficient, and yet I can see Gresser's point that we're better off importing certain things. Coffee comes to my mind.
Gresser then talks about American history. As Gresser notes, trade was a significant part of America's early days. The Declaration of Independence criticizes the British for hindering the thirteen colonies' trade with other countries, the American flag consisted of imported goods, Thomas Jefferson promoted free trade as something that would be conducive to prosperity, and Thomas Paine thought that trade would lead to peace. But Gresser says that there were strong protectionist voices, such as Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, the Whigs, and later the Republicans. Like the leftist critics of free trade today, protectionists in America's history feared that free trade would drive down American wages because American workers would have to compete with foreign workers (in this case, in Europe), who were poor because they were not paid much. But another reason that protectionists liked tariffs was that they were an easy and convenient source of government revenue, and the Whigs and early Republicans supported public financing (of infrastructure, for example) as a way to stimulate the American economy.
Moreover, whereas Lou Dobbs presents outsourcing as a devastating outcome of corporate influence on the U.S. government, Gresser notes that protectionism in America's history tended to coincide with a relationship between government and business interests----since the special interests back then were the businesses that wanted to be protected from foreign competition.
It will be interesting to read Pat Buchanan's The Great Betrayal to get his take on protectionism and free trade in America's history. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the Founding Fathers supported trade as a general principle, while also practicing protectionist policies every now and then. Such inconsistency or pragmatism is possible, for Ronald Reagan was believed to be a free trader, and yet, as Phyllis Schlafly states, he "imposed tariffs on motorcycles to protect Harley-Davidson and on electronic products from Japan" (see here).
Gresser made the point that trade is good because other countries make some things better and more efficiently than we do, and we make some things better than other countries, so it's beneficial to all sides to let them stick with what they're good at and to trade. Moreover, according to Gresser, protectionism makes foreign goods more expensive, with the result that consumers have less money to spend on other goods, thereby hurting the economy. Gresser also points to places that tried to be self-sufficient and to cut themselves off from the outside world----Sparta, North Korea, etc.----and he believes that we should not want to be like them. I'd like to see better arguments for why a country should not try to be self-sufficient, and yet I can see Gresser's point that we're better off importing certain things. Coffee comes to my mind.
Gresser then talks about American history. As Gresser notes, trade was a significant part of America's early days. The Declaration of Independence criticizes the British for hindering the thirteen colonies' trade with other countries, the American flag consisted of imported goods, Thomas Jefferson promoted free trade as something that would be conducive to prosperity, and Thomas Paine thought that trade would lead to peace. But Gresser says that there were strong protectionist voices, such as Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, the Whigs, and later the Republicans. Like the leftist critics of free trade today, protectionists in America's history feared that free trade would drive down American wages because American workers would have to compete with foreign workers (in this case, in Europe), who were poor because they were not paid much. But another reason that protectionists liked tariffs was that they were an easy and convenient source of government revenue, and the Whigs and early Republicans supported public financing (of infrastructure, for example) as a way to stimulate the American economy.
Moreover, whereas Lou Dobbs presents outsourcing as a devastating outcome of corporate influence on the U.S. government, Gresser notes that protectionism in America's history tended to coincide with a relationship between government and business interests----since the special interests back then were the businesses that wanted to be protected from foreign competition.
It will be interesting to read Pat Buchanan's The Great Betrayal to get his take on protectionism and free trade in America's history. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the Founding Fathers supported trade as a general principle, while also practicing protectionist policies every now and then. Such inconsistency or pragmatism is possible, for Ronald Reagan was believed to be a free trader, and yet, as Phyllis Schlafly states, he "imposed tariffs on motorcycles to protect Harley-Davidson and on electronic products from Japan" (see here).
Monday, October 1, 2012
Freedom from Want 1
I started Edward Gresser's Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy.
Gresser got the phrase "Freedom from Want" from President Franklin D.
Roosevelt, a strong advocate of free trade. That fits into a prominent
theme in Gresser's book: that free trade is an idea that liberals have
historically promulgated, even though the Left today tends to be
critical of the concept. (By free trade, I don't mean the total absence
of tariffs, but rather such agreements as NAFTA and GATT.)
I actually bought this book back when I was a conservative. There were liberals in my corner of academia who were critical of President George W. Bush's support for free trade----which (according to them) entailed the outsourcing of American jobs and the oppression of the Third World----and I learned about this book while watching the Fox News program, The Beltway Boys, which had Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke. I decided to buy this book in order to combat the liberal anti-Bush rhetoric that I was hearing and reading. But I haven't gotten around to reading it until now!
In my reading of the book thus far, Gresser makes a variety of points, often as he focuses on a Cambodian garment worker named Srei. While Srei's income is low by U.S. standards, Gresser argues, it is quite reasonable in Cambodia, when compared with how much other people there (a cop and a health clinic doctor) make and the cost of things in that country. Gresser also states that work at a Cambodian garment factory is better than other options for women in Cambodia, such as being a sex worker. For Gresser, free trade helps people in other countries, even poorer ones.
Gresser discusses the rationale for certain policies of the much maligned World Trade Organization. Why, for example, does GATT limit the United States' tariff on cotton shirts to 16.5 per cent, whereas Cambodia can have a tariff of 25 percent? The reason that Cambodia's tariff can be so high, Gresser maintains, is that a large influx of cheap imported cotton shirts would wipe out Cambodia's only industry. Regarding the U.S., Gresser does not say a whole lot, but my opinion is that the WTO requires the U.S. to have a lower tariff because we are such a huge customer for foreign products: in a sense, "free trade" depends on us.
Gresser talks about other issues as well. For one, he notes that trade makes up a huge chunk of the world's economy----one-fifth of goods and services. Gresser is probably making this point to set the stage for his discussion on trade, but I think that there's a sub-text here (though I can't prove it): that trade is a significant part of our economy these days, and we cannot turn back from that without causing damage. Second, Gresser contends that trade between the nations is conducive to peace. I think that Gresser may be on to something here. China currently owns a lot of our debt, and I believe that the main reason that it has been nice to us is because we are dependable customers for its products. (Or we are unless Mitt Romney becomes President and decides to challenge China.)
I'll close this post with something that Gresser says on page 22 about the impact of free trade on America's economy, in response to the leftist claim that free trade has resulted in unemployment due to outsourcing, as well as environmental degradation and threats to the health of workers: "Since the 1970s----even more so since the NAFTA----jobs have grown easier to find. American businesses employ more people, and fewer Americans are out of work. American factories produce more than they did in the past, and at the same time the country is cleaner and workers are healthier." Gresser says that he will provide more details about this picture later in the book.
I actually bought this book back when I was a conservative. There were liberals in my corner of academia who were critical of President George W. Bush's support for free trade----which (according to them) entailed the outsourcing of American jobs and the oppression of the Third World----and I learned about this book while watching the Fox News program, The Beltway Boys, which had Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke. I decided to buy this book in order to combat the liberal anti-Bush rhetoric that I was hearing and reading. But I haven't gotten around to reading it until now!
In my reading of the book thus far, Gresser makes a variety of points, often as he focuses on a Cambodian garment worker named Srei. While Srei's income is low by U.S. standards, Gresser argues, it is quite reasonable in Cambodia, when compared with how much other people there (a cop and a health clinic doctor) make and the cost of things in that country. Gresser also states that work at a Cambodian garment factory is better than other options for women in Cambodia, such as being a sex worker. For Gresser, free trade helps people in other countries, even poorer ones.
Gresser discusses the rationale for certain policies of the much maligned World Trade Organization. Why, for example, does GATT limit the United States' tariff on cotton shirts to 16.5 per cent, whereas Cambodia can have a tariff of 25 percent? The reason that Cambodia's tariff can be so high, Gresser maintains, is that a large influx of cheap imported cotton shirts would wipe out Cambodia's only industry. Regarding the U.S., Gresser does not say a whole lot, but my opinion is that the WTO requires the U.S. to have a lower tariff because we are such a huge customer for foreign products: in a sense, "free trade" depends on us.
Gresser talks about other issues as well. For one, he notes that trade makes up a huge chunk of the world's economy----one-fifth of goods and services. Gresser is probably making this point to set the stage for his discussion on trade, but I think that there's a sub-text here (though I can't prove it): that trade is a significant part of our economy these days, and we cannot turn back from that without causing damage. Second, Gresser contends that trade between the nations is conducive to peace. I think that Gresser may be on to something here. China currently owns a lot of our debt, and I believe that the main reason that it has been nice to us is because we are dependable customers for its products. (Or we are unless Mitt Romney becomes President and decides to challenge China.)
I'll close this post with something that Gresser says on page 22 about the impact of free trade on America's economy, in response to the leftist claim that free trade has resulted in unemployment due to outsourcing, as well as environmental degradation and threats to the health of workers: "Since the 1970s----even more so since the NAFTA----jobs have grown easier to find. American businesses employ more people, and fewer Americans are out of work. American factories produce more than they did in the past, and at the same time the country is cleaner and workers are healthier." Gresser says that he will provide more details about this picture later in the book.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Lou Dobbs' "War on the Middle Class" 4: Free Trade
In my latest reading of War on the Middle Class: How the
Government, Big Business, and Special Interest Groups Are Waging War on
the American Dream and How to Fight Back, Lou Dobbs criticized free trade and outsourcing.
Regarding free trade, Dobbs argues that the current system is not balanced, for we (by which I mean the U.S.) buy other countries' goods more than they buy ours, resulting in a trade deficit. Not only are our tariffs lower than that of some of our trading partners, but there also are many in some of these countries who are too poor to buy our products. Moreover, Dobbs contends that NAFTA has not ameliorated poverty in Mexico. Dobbs also talks about how the World Trade Organization infringes on American sovereignty. On page 105, Dobbs states, "The WTO is currently assisting Wal-Mart in taking on state policies, by helping the world's biggest retailer get concessions opposed by local governments."
Regarding outsourcing, Dobbs states that it has resulted in the export, not only of manufacturing jobs, but also of the service and tech jobs that free trade was supposed to create in the United States. Arianna Huffington made the same point in Third World America, blaming this problem on the United States' lack of competitiveness in education. According to Dobbs, the jobs that will have the greatest demand include waiters and waitresses, janitors and cleaners, food preparers, hospital workers, cashiers, customer-service representatives, retail salespeople, general and operational managers, and postsecondary teachers----jobs that cannot be outsourced. Dobbs does not believe that the jobs that people get after losing their manufacturing jobs pay as much, and Dobbs holds that, notwithstanding the cheap goods that free trade has provided to people in the U.S., employees in the U.S. are not better off, and that is due to the stagnation of their wages.
I'm planning on reading more about free trade after I finish Dobbs' book: Edward Gresser's Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy, and Pat Buchanan's The Great Betrayal: How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy. My impression (and I am open to correction) is that the former book defends free trade from a liberal perspective, whereas the latter critiques it. I'm curious about how free trade has impacted the United States and the rest of the world, and what the solution could be. While Dobbs is probably correct that free trade has resulted in the stagnation of wages, do we want to create a situation in which other countries are no longer a market for our goods (at some level), or prices go up due to protectionism resulting in lower productivity?
Regarding free trade, Dobbs argues that the current system is not balanced, for we (by which I mean the U.S.) buy other countries' goods more than they buy ours, resulting in a trade deficit. Not only are our tariffs lower than that of some of our trading partners, but there also are many in some of these countries who are too poor to buy our products. Moreover, Dobbs contends that NAFTA has not ameliorated poverty in Mexico. Dobbs also talks about how the World Trade Organization infringes on American sovereignty. On page 105, Dobbs states, "The WTO is currently assisting Wal-Mart in taking on state policies, by helping the world's biggest retailer get concessions opposed by local governments."
Regarding outsourcing, Dobbs states that it has resulted in the export, not only of manufacturing jobs, but also of the service and tech jobs that free trade was supposed to create in the United States. Arianna Huffington made the same point in Third World America, blaming this problem on the United States' lack of competitiveness in education. According to Dobbs, the jobs that will have the greatest demand include waiters and waitresses, janitors and cleaners, food preparers, hospital workers, cashiers, customer-service representatives, retail salespeople, general and operational managers, and postsecondary teachers----jobs that cannot be outsourced. Dobbs does not believe that the jobs that people get after losing their manufacturing jobs pay as much, and Dobbs holds that, notwithstanding the cheap goods that free trade has provided to people in the U.S., employees in the U.S. are not better off, and that is due to the stagnation of their wages.
I'm planning on reading more about free trade after I finish Dobbs' book: Edward Gresser's Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy, and Pat Buchanan's The Great Betrayal: How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy. My impression (and I am open to correction) is that the former book defends free trade from a liberal perspective, whereas the latter critiques it. I'm curious about how free trade has impacted the United States and the rest of the world, and what the solution could be. While Dobbs is probably correct that free trade has resulted in the stagnation of wages, do we want to create a situation in which other countries are no longer a market for our goods (at some level), or prices go up due to protectionism resulting in lower productivity?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)