The China Deal: If You Can't Sell It, Buy It

Max B. Sawicky sawicky at bellatlantic.net
Tue May 23 09:39:41 PDT 2000


Michael Pollak wrote:
> On Sat, 20 May 2000, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> > If imports keep domestic prices down, then people (those who don't
> > lose their jobs to imports, of course) have more money to spend on
> > other goods. We can argue about the relative importance of the two
> > influences - lower prices vs. job loss - but to ignore the lower price
> > angle is analytically incomplete.
>
> If I understand it correctly, the comparative advantage argument is that
> that extra money is not only spent on other things that wouldn't otherwise
> have been bought, but those things are produced by people that wouldn't
> otherwise have been employed -- so that even imports produce jobs. Do you
> and Mark agree that part's not true? If so, can you send me to a good
> critique of it? Michael

Well, that's the issue. I don't think you can simply assume it does. It may be true, but you have to prove it, which I don't think Mark or anyone at EPI has ever done. Max? You guys on top of this? Doug
>>>>>>>>>>

[mbs] The idea that goods should be produced where they cost least to do so is not comparative advantage. It's absolute advantage. As to comparative advantage, I'm afraid I have not the time to be brief. As the term suggests, it's about relative costs, not absolute ones.

The doctrine of comparative advantage has been criticized ad nauseum, including I believe by P. Krugman.

The reduced prices from imports are indeed a gain in well-being for consumers in general, whereas the job losses (and ensuing downward wage pressure) are probably more localized (unless you're the one who gets screwed!).

But if you see well-being springing from lower prices, then you ought to oppose all manner of industrial action, trade unionism, public spending, etc., and join the G.O.P.

Why stop at cross-border transactions? Occupational health & safety? Screw it. Reduce prices. The general gain is more important than the narrowly focused pain. No pain, no gain. Ugh.

At bottom I would suggest the issue is profoundly booshwah consumerist ideology, underlying a gloss of neo-liberal welfare economic accounting, alternating with free trade marxism-internationalism, versus proletarian (dare I say "producerist"?) interests.

They key social relation is that of the worker, not the consumer or taxpayer. The fundamental cause is labor income and the social wage, NOT the price level or "efficiency." "Internationalism" as purveyed by certain nameless marxists is just another way of saying free trade isn't as good as revolution, but it's better than everything else.

Gawd I'm so radical.

mbs



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list