--><div>
<font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#002864">http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1385</font>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<font size="2"><font face="Verdana" color="#002864" size="5"><strong>Jobs Overseas? Another Attempt to Explain</strong></font>
</div>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><font face="Verdana" size="4">By Llewellyn H. Rockwell,
Jr.</font>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><font face="Verdana">[Posted November 27, 2003]</font>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><font face="Verdana"><img alt src="http://www.mises.org/images3/renminbi.jpg" align="right" border="0" width="280" height="141">The
Bush administration has slapped </font><font face="Verdana">high
duties</font><font face="Verdana"> on Chinese TV sets for the alleged
problem of"dumping"—which increasingly means selling at prices
lower than sets sold by established firms. </font>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><font face="Verdana">Let's leave the issue of dumping
for now and examine the claim that jobs are being shipped overseas, which is
usually what is said when great foreign products appear in US stores. A number
of people have observed that TVs are no longer made in the <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
US</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
. The implication is that at least the Bush administration recognizes a
problem. The jobs that used to go into making TVs have effectively been
shipped overseas. Why not act?</font>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><font face="Verdana">International economic historian
Sudha Shenoy (<ST1:PLACE>
<ST1:PLACETYPE>
University</ST1:PLACETYPE>
of <ST1:PLACENAME>
Newcastle</ST1:PLACENAME>
</ST1:PLACE>
) has been at the offices of the Mises Institute, and this topic has come up
quite often. She has found herself astounded at the lack of knowledge over
trade issues in the <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
US</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
, and alarmed by growing protectionist sentiment. I'll offer a response to the
above in a manner that follows a number of points that she has been making
about trade.</font>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><font face="Verdana">Let's first watch our language.
Jobs are not being shipped, and Americans are not somehow being stopped from
making TVs. TVs can still be made in the <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
US</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
. Everyone and anyone is free to invest the money, hire the workers (bidding
them away from other pursuits), buy the parts, build the sets, and put them on
sale. That the same processes are undertaken in <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
China</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
has no bearing on anyone's freedom to do it here. If you want to make an
all-American TV, no one is stopping you.</font>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><font face="Verdana">And yet, as with any other product,
the US TV maker must still face the issue of persuading people to buy. The
question comes down to the price people are willing to pay for your TV sets
versus the prices charged by the competition. To try to sell them at a price
that justifies your investment and worker salaries means they would sit on the
shelves unsold because the same product or better is available at a cheaper
price. You will have to lower your price to sell them, and will end up selling
at a loss.</font>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><font face="Verdana">Now, you are free to continue to
make losses, or produce TV sets that nobody buys, employing workers and
dumping capital into the project, but you must eventually come to terms with
the fact that you are not going to make a profit. That you are unique in
choosing an economically unviable path would not be surprising. Investors are
not so stupid that they continue to pour scarce resources into production (which
is always and everywhere directed toward the final end of consumption) that
makes no sense.</font>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><font face="Verdana">Now, is it a problem that
American consumers (and businesses that import and sell TVs retail) have
access to lower priced TVs than can be made in the <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
US</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
? Not at all. It is great for the buyers of TVs and it is great for the
economy in general because this frees up capital and labor to be employed in
better projects. To force the situation to be otherwise would imply sheer
waste: deliberately raising the price of TVs by restricting supply or taxing
non-US TVs. This is precisely the Bush administration policy, and it
accomplishes nothing but destruction. It is only putting off the inevitable
and taxing people in the process.</font>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><font face="Verdana">Then we come to the question of why
it is possible to make TVs more cheaply in <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
China</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
than the <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
US</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
. It is a matter of the widening circles of the division of labor. <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
China</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
finds itself in a stage of economic development that allows it to specialize
more and more in manufacturing at the expense of agriculture, even as the less
developed nations are specializing more and more in agriculture. While this is
taking place, more advanced nations are finding it economically advantageous
to specialize in the production of goods and services that require more
advanced labor skills and more capital expense.</font>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><font face="Verdana">In short, <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
China</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
(as well as <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
South Korea</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
, <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
Indonesia</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
, <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
Malaysia</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
, and many other booming economies) is finding itself in the position that the
<ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
US</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
was in the early 20<sup>th</sup> century, while the less developed nations are
taking on tasks that used to be performed by the <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
US</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
in the early 19<sup>th</sup> century. It is globalism of economic processes
that account for why the world, and not just the single nation, is the
relevant domain to consider in understanding this.</font>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><font face="Verdana">These long-term trends of economic
development are part of the blessing given to the world by the free mobility
of capital. And so long as markets are free, they are also perfectly capable
of adjusting. It is not only good for people around the world that prosperity
is rising and the division of labor is expanding; it is good for the <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
US</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
. To wall ourselves off does nothing but subsidize waste.</font>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><font face="Verdana">What about workers who lack the
job skills to fit into the higher and higher levels of sophisticated
production in which the <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
US</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
is specializing? Because of the existence of scarcity, there will never be a
shortage of jobs to do, so long as we live in time and not eternal bliss. The
phrase"shortage of jobs" can only be colloquial; there is never a
shortage of things to do. It is only a question of price, and the best way to
raise the wages is to make sure that people do what they are most suited to
do—which can only be known by letting markets work.</font>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><font face="Verdana">High-level production such as the <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
US</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
specializes in refers not to every job but only the dominant industries;
within each there also exists a sophisticated division of labor. Not every
employee at Microsoft designs software; the firm also provides jobs to packers,
shippers, artists, gardeners, and a thousand other professions. Not every
employee of the financial industry is a bond trader; rather, a profitable bond
business provides jobs to ever widening circles of employment.</font>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><font face="Verdana">Now, some people have been drawing
attention to the supposed uniqueness of the current moment in international
trade, in the following sense. US companies are not just foregoing certain
production processes in order to allow them to be done by the Chinese. Instead,
US firms are moving their plants to <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
China</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
, not to sell to the Chinese, but in order to re-import their products into
the <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
US</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
to sell.</font>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><font face="Verdana">Is this a uniquely troubling
situation? Again, not at all. <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
US</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
business owners have observed a profit opportunity and seized it. The
alternative is that <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
US</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
business not notice the opportunity and let others get there first. This would
hardly be something to celebrate. It is a testament to the acumen of <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
US</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
businessmen that they can go anywhere in the world, take advantage of local
economic conditions and then sell to anyone else in the world. It so happens
that American consumers are in a great position to buy the best products from
everywhere in the world (so long as their government lets them). Thus do we
see the end result of American capital producing for Americans in countries
especially suited to host the process, while the <ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
<ST1:PLACE>
US</ST1:PLACE>
</ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>
itself hosts ever more sophisticated production.</font>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><font face="Verdana">In the Winter 2003 issue of the Austrian
Economics Newsletter, due out soon, Professor Shenoy discusses how the US
is just now coming to terms with the long-run trend toward greater levels of
development around the world, and why the US had better get used to it
and make the adjustment. The Bush administration has done its best to slow
down economic development via tariffs and every other manner of protectionism.
But this is only delaying the inevitable.</font>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><font face="Verdana">There is no surfeit of wonderful
trends in our time, but the progress being made through global trade (progress
at home and abroad) is certainly one of them. Leave it to government to try to
rob us of the blessings of prosperity and peace that come from trade. And it
is no different with trade than with every other area of life. We can permit
the market to work or we can hobble it with taxes as it eventually gets its
way in the long run. That is our choice. As Professor Shenoy would say, the
free market is not perfect, but it is always better than the results that come
from any attempt by government to make it better.</font>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><span class="214491114-27112003"><font face="Verdana">________________________</font></span>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><font face="Verdana">Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., is
president of the Mises Institute and editor of </font><font face="Verdana">LewRockwell.com</font><font face="Verdana">.</font>
</font>
|
-->Immer dieses"Jobs overseas".
Nach dieser Logik dürfte es bald in den USA niemanden mehr geben, der Fernseher bauen kann - was für eine lächerliche Vorstellung! Ebenso dürfte es niemanden mehr geben, der Stahl kochen kann, niemanden mehr, der Tuche weben und Kleider schneidern kann etc etc., weil das in China alles viel billiger zu haben ist. [img][/img]
Es gibt gewisse Grundfertigkeiten, die ein Land keinesfalls aufgeben darf, auch wenn selbst über lange Zeiträume hinweg die Güter aus dem Ausland billiger gekauft werden können.
Weil kein Mensch sagen kann, welche Fähigkeiten morgen wichtig sein werden, weil kein Mensch sagen kann, auf welchen Fähigkeiten die nächsten Innovationen aufbauen, deshalb muß jedes Land darauf achtgeben, daß die Fähigkeiten nicht verloren gehen, selbst wenn es sich gelegentlich vordergründig nicht lohnt, sie weiter zu verfolgen.
Mehr noch: diese Fähigkeiten müssen nicht nur hier und dort vorhanden sein (z.B. an Universitäten oder in Bibliotheken), sondern sie müssen weit im Volk verbreitet sein. Je größer das Angebot an Fähigkeiten und je weiter ihre Verbreitung, desto eher wird genau dieses Land bei der nächsten Innovationswelle führend sein und in der Lage den Welthandel mit seinen Produkten zu bereichern.
bob
|