What Export-Oriented America Means

by on April 3, 2012 at 3:12 am in Current Affairs, Economics | Permalink

That is the title of my new 4000 or so word essay for The American Interest.  Excerpt:

At least three forces are likely to combine to make the United States an [increasing] export powerhouse.

First, artificial intelligence and computing power are the future, or even the present, for much of manufacturing. It’s not just the robots; look at the hundreds of computers and software-driven devices embedded in a new car. Factory floors these days are nearly empty of people because software-driven machines are doing most of the work. The factory has been reinvented as a quiet place. There is now a joke that “a modern textile mill employs only a man and a dog—the man to feed the dog, and the dog to keep the man away from the machines.”

The next steps in the artificial intelligence revolution, as manifested most publicly through systems like Deep Blue, Watson and Siri, will revolutionize production in one sector after another. Computing power solves more problems each year, including manufacturing problems.

It’s not just that Silicon Valley and the Pentagon and our universities give the United States a big edge with smart machines. The subtler point is this: The more the world relies on smart machines, the more domestic wage rates become irrelevant for export prowess.

…The second force behind export growth will be the recent discoveries of very large shale oil and natural gas deposits in the United States…

That brings us to the third reason why America is likely to return as a dominant export power: demand from the rapidly developing countries, and not just or even mainly demand for fossil fuel. As the developing world becomes wealthier, demand for American exports will grow. (Mexico, which is already geared to a U.S.-dominated global economy, is likely to be another big winner, but that is a story for another day.)

In the early stages of growth in developing nations, importers buy timber, copper, nickel and resources linked to construction and infrastructure development. Those have not been U.S. export specialties, and so a lot of the gains from these countries’ growth so far have gone to Canada, Australia and Chile. Usually American outputs are geared toward wealthier consumers and higher-quality outputs, which is what you would expect from the world’s wealthiest and most technologically advanced home market. To put it simply, the closer other nations come to our economic level, the more they will want to buy our stuff.

That’s just the introduction.  The rest of the essay considers: “how will this shape American foreign policy, jobs, education, politics and poverty?”  For instance:

Some of the new technological and export-related breakthroughs will consist of making education and health care more affordable, often through software and smart machines that bypass the current credentialized control of those fields. Imagine getting an online medical diagnosis from a smart machine like IBM’s Watson, or learning mathematics from an online MITx program or one of its successors. The American poor and lower middle class will have considerably greater opportunities, at least if they are savvy with information technology and disciplined enough to take advantage of these new free or cheaper goods. Of course, this will not come close to helping everybody. These internet tools reward the self-motivated, who will be disproportionately well educated, even if their parents lack higher education, wealth and connections. Many of the rest will still fall by the wayside.

Do read the whole thing.  You can think of it as some current thoughts on what it would look like to climb out of The Great Stagnation.

Addendum: Reihan adds excellent comments.

Steve Sailer April 3, 2012 at 3:31 am

“The American poor and lower middle class will have considerably greater opportunities, at least if they are savvy with information technology and disciplined enough to take advantage of these new free or cheaper goods.”

Similarly, air transit could be endangered by flying pigs.

Jim April 3, 2012 at 5:26 pm

The Germans sneered exactly the same sneer about rural Americans, until armies of rural Americans who had learned how to work mechanized farm equipment and keep it running indefinitely, swarmed in on more tanks than they had artillery rounds to stop them with, and put some white (and black) blood in their babies. The Germans made a career in the last century of underestimating us Mischlinge.

In fact when it comes to information technology, that is exactly what the Army nowadays considers one of the main competences of an infantryman. And they are not having much of a problem finding kids wo have grown up playing with all kinds of techie toys to fill those slots.

Anthony April 3, 2012 at 11:56 pm

There’s a big difference between *operating* information technology and *creating* it. Even the people supporting the programmers and hardware engineers generally have to be at least as bright as average, which definitionally leaves out half the population.

Bender Bending Rodriguez April 3, 2012 at 5:58 pm

I’m a programmer by profession, and I didn’t get that way through a CS program at a university. In fact, I’ve only had 6 programming courses in my entire life.
What I _did_ have was parents who were interested in computers back near the beginning, starting with a TS/1000, progressing through a couple different models of Apple II,
an early Mac (on loan from Microsoft of all places), and then an IBM PC clone, all before graduating high school.

Steve Sailer April 3, 2012 at 4:01 am

“To put it simply, the closer other nations come to our economic level, the more they will want to buy our stuff.”

So, that’s why the Japanese all started buying Cadillacs in the 1970s.

I know I’m sounding snarky, but the historical record would seem to show that East Asians didn’t get the memo about how the theory of comparative advantage proves they shouldn’t favor their fellow countrymen over, say, Americans.

The Japanese and South Koreans like buying Japanese and South Korean made stuff. They look to America for entertainment and positional goods like movies and college diplomas, but they prefer to buy their mainstays at home.

Why will the rest of East Asia behave all that differently from the protectionist path to prosperity blazed by Japan and South Korea?

Ricardo April 3, 2012 at 5:50 am

But this snark is simply inaccurate: Japan, South Korea and China are all among the top 10 importers of U.S. goods. “Protectionism” means imports as a percentage of a country’s GDP is small: in dollar terms or even as a percentage of U.S. GDP, U.S. exports could grow rapidly as other countries’ GDPs increase relative to America’s.

Put another way, China is a relatively poor country yet is already among the largest importers of U.S. goods. The value of Chinese imports from the U.S. has increased five-fold over the past 11 years. The fact that it may also be importing more from other Asian countries does not appear to affect Tyler’s core argument.

Steve Sailer April 3, 2012 at 6:55 am

No, protectionism means that prosperous Japanese and Koreans take various actions, de jure and de facto, that, all else being equal, discourage the sale of American goods. And that they do.

Rahul April 3, 2012 at 8:09 am

I think Ricardo offered a perfectly reasonable metric of protectionism, namely “Imports as a percent of GDP”.

American imports made up 18% of GDP in 2010. Japan’s number was 14% and for Korea 50%. Additionally, since you alluded to the protectionist history of East Asians here’s another statistic: the East Asian nations on average had imports as 30% of their GDP.

If you disagree, do you have a better quantitative measure of protectionism to offer?

Ranjit Suresh April 3, 2012 at 9:50 am

Yes Rahul – protectionism in Japan and South Korea means they buy fewer American autos than we buy Japanese. Much fewer.

Not all exports are created equal. We don’t want to be the world leaders in scrap metal and paper, but in A.I. as Tyler Cowen suggests.

msgkings April 3, 2012 at 10:40 am

Rahul 2, Sailer 0

Scoop April 3, 2012 at 12:48 pm

Wouldn’t the correct metric of protectionism be “Imports as percentage of GDP as they would be without protection” minus “imports as percentage of GDP as they are with existing protection”?

It’s perfectly conceivable for a country that imports 2/3 of everything to have far higher protection barriers than one that imports little. Jigger with energy prices and give one country very low energy reserves.

Those numbers you may mean a lot or they may reasonably little. Or am I missing something?

Anthony April 3, 2012 at 4:24 pm

I’d say that a better measure – at least more related to America’s future prosperity is the percentage of GDP made up of imports of manufactured goods.

The American comparative advantage right now is in production goods, not consumer goods. Look at a construction site or a factory – there will be plenty of American-made equipment, almost all of it with a price tag of $250,000 or more. There will also be German and Japanese equipment, but almost nothing made in China at that price range, and very little made in Korea. There might be something from the Netherlands or Sweden. We’re still good at manufacturing, but mostly big-ticket items, not stuff people buy for themselves.

Unfortunately, this ties into Steve Sailer’s first snark, about poor and lower-middle-class people. Million-dollar machines may be put together on assembly lines, but the people working on them aren’t just turning a screw or pulling a lever. They’ve got more complicated work to do, and they have to be somewhat smarter and more attentive than a sweatshop worker or someone packing plastic toys into a box. Half the American population is below average, and finding reasonable work for them isn’t easy.

Steve Sailer April 3, 2012 at 4:41 pm

I’m an old coot, so I remember stuff that happened before the kids who are wowed by Ricardo were around. Back in the 1980s, there were plenty of investigations into the non-tariff barriers retarding imports into Japan of American cars. They were legion: a host of inspections and other red tape. The final barrier, though, was that the Japanese people, average and elite, thought it was better for the Japanese people to make their own cars than to buy them from America. Eventually, the Reagan Administration slapped a protectionist quota system on Japanese cars and that sped up the process of the Japanese brands starting car factories in the U.S. It was a huge and continuing triumph for protectionism, but it has disappeared down the Memory Hole because it doesn’t accord well with the theory taught in Econ 101.

Jim April 3, 2012 at 5:19 pm

“I’m an old coot, so I remember stuff that happened before the kids who are wowed by Ricardo were around.”

Yes that’s all true and it’s all 30 years in the past. Japan is no longer the Japan of the 80s. And neither is the US as round-heeled as we used to be.

Rahul April 3, 2012 at 10:59 pm

Wouldn’t the correct metric of protectionism be “Imports as percentage of GDP as they would be without protection” minus “imports as percentage of GDP as they are with existing protection”?

Which could be a good metric too; only how does one quantitatively estimate the hypothetical first term about “how much imports would be without protection”?

Rahul April 3, 2012 at 11:07 pm

@Sailer

Why the obsession with cars? Are we talking about import-protectionism or just the automobile sector?

The kids are wowed by Ricardo because he’s offering data, whereas you, anecdotes.

The Original D April 3, 2012 at 9:36 am

Is it possible for them to do all this and exports to go up nonetheless? Have we not spent the last 40 years trying to lower oil imports?

Tyler Cowen April 3, 2012 at 8:46 am

Furthermore plenty of growing economies are not East Asian.

Scoop April 3, 2012 at 9:26 am

If they hypothesis is that wealthier countries will want American goods, that would seem to be easy to test.

Do we with most wealthy countries? With any wealthy countries?

I’m seriously asking.

Scoop April 3, 2012 at 9:31 am

I, of course, meant to type “Do we have trade surpluses with most wealthy countries?”

Also, like Steve, I’d be curious what on earth Tyler thinks we’ll be able to do to make the poor “savvy with information technology and disciplined enough to take advantage of these new free or cheaper goods.” How on earth will the bottom third or so end up as ZMP workers when the computers are smarter than them in every respect?

Will we learn to raise IQs? Will we at least learn to shame effectively, a la Charles Murray, and force them to build a culture that isn’t quite so disastrously self-destroying? I doubt it.

dead serious April 3, 2012 at 12:29 pm

What’s more likely – that the poor in the US will become smart enough to make a living in the “AI production” industry (whatever that even means) or that smart foreigners will (and that it would be very easily offshored)?

The Original D April 3, 2012 at 9:37 am

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/top/dst/current/surplus.html

That said, you don’t have to have a trade surplus for exports to go up.

Scoop April 3, 2012 at 10:39 am

No. Obviously he’s arguing that several changes will take place to create the trade surplus, and increasing prosperity among poor countries is just one of them, so I was wrong in demanding trade surpluses with rich countries as a proof. I should have merely demanded strong negative correlation between country wealth and our deficit with that country.

I wrote the comment before reading the actual piece, which was stupid. He also addresses my second question, though not fully to my satisfaction, but I apologize anyway for spouting off too early. It wasn’t adding much to the conversation.

Sergey Kurdakov April 3, 2012 at 5:08 am

Unlike Steve I liked article very much.

I think, while the new opportunities are somewhat available to other countries, they will not succeed, like Japan was not successful with IT ( though I would like my country did, but it will not for obvious reason – the chance that Putin will be next 12 years in power is great and this man just have no idea of technologies, and what he offers – looks moronic ). But still, after two decades pass, other countries will look at success of US, but then, most of the world would be developed in 50 years or so ( currently developing countries have 4% better growth per year, than developed, so they will be almost near leaders in half a century )

the spam robots are getting better and better April 3, 2012 at 2:52 pm

Yes. Economic growth is a straight line projection. Which is why after those 6% growth rates in the Soviet Union in 1960, the Russian Empire is the master of Euroasia…

Penelope April 3, 2012 at 6:05 am

I like this bit: “The American poor and lower middle class will have considerably greater opportunities, at least if they are savvy with information technology and disciplined enough…”

In other words: If the poor and lower middle classes can somehow first stop being the poor and lower middle classes, they will benefit!!!

The Original D April 3, 2012 at 9:40 am

Yes, it does seem tautological. OTOH, it wasn’t long ago that “good with technology” basically meant you could help your parents program their VCR, which in turn might get you a gig in a local repair shop. Now with the Internet there is much more potential for sharpening and monetizing your skills without higher ed.

Penelope April 3, 2012 at 1:12 pm

Right. OTOH, now all the local repair shops are gone. D’oh!

Gasminder April 3, 2012 at 6:40 am

In the essay you say “Even if not all the recently discovered fields pan out or meet expectations (as already seems to be the case with the Marcellus field in the Northeastern United States)” – I’m curious what that Marcellus comment is based on.

Not because I disagree but because I’m in the business and a bit bemused by the “unlimited natural gas from shales” meme that seems is out there. I’m curious what you’ve seen to make you question that in the Marcellus as I question it in all the shale plays.

Steve Sailer April 3, 2012 at 6:57 am

Isn’t fracking more likely to give America the “Dutch disease” of a more expensive currency, just the way that natural gas discoveries gave the Dutch Dutch Disease?

Urso April 3, 2012 at 10:24 am

America is way too big of an economy to become reliant on one or two commodity exports to the detriment of other industries, which is what I’ve always understood to be the definition of Dutch disease. Now Dutch disease may well affect some small parts of America, such as North Dakota or De Soto Parish, which are both relatively poor and heavily reliant on energy exports. But those areas weren’t exactly leading the technological revolution beforehand either.

As to the dollar being kept artificially high by expensive commodity exports, have you seen the price of natural gas recently? Not a big concern. More of an issue for our antipodean cousins, I would think

Becky Hargrove April 3, 2012 at 7:18 am

I can understand your desire to put a positive spin on things, especially given the refusal of so many to believe in The Great Stagnation. However, a central problem remains: the lower and middle classes have to chart a new path for themselves which neither governments or businesses can chart for them – or money in its current incarnation for that matter. If we are going to avoid the fate of Greece, that is something we need to be doing now, because until that happens, technology will continue to be seen as a threat. It’s almost impossible for me to believe we have not even overcome such a basic psychological roadblock, but we have not. Only when we learn to create new affordable environments and harness our own knowledge and skills potential, will the benefits of today’s business realm become something that is sustainable.

sammler April 3, 2012 at 7:32 am

This has been an investment banking joke for at least ten years:

“In the future, each trading desk will have a computer, a trader, and a dog. The computer will execute trades. If it goes haywire, the trader will turn it off. If he does anything else, the dog will bite him.”

Re Mr. Sailer’s point, I can testify firsthand that 96-98% of vehicles seen on Japanese highways between Tokyo and Narita are Japanese-made. The reasons cannot be purely economic.

Sbard April 3, 2012 at 9:47 am

The exact same joke has been made about factories as well.

Anon April 3, 2012 at 10:18 am

And planes

Urso April 3, 2012 at 10:25 am

I first heard it regarding the Mercury spacecraft

Wonks Anonymous April 3, 2012 at 11:26 am

I heard that version over a decade ago. Except it was “the factory of the future”.

Yancey Ward April 3, 2012 at 11:40 am

I can testify firsthand that 96-98% of vehicles seen on Japanese highways between Tokyo and Narita are Japanese-made

The real mystery to me is why this isn’t the case in the US- American cars still suck.

the spam robots are getting better and better April 3, 2012 at 2:57 pm

no they dont. by most measures an American car of equal costs is as good or better than the latest model Japanese car. Unfortunately for American car makers, the beliefs that their cars ‘still suck’ lasts much longer.

Yancey Ward April 3, 2012 at 5:44 pm

Self-serving measures no doubt. I have family that own both, and the American cars suck in comparison. Now, I will grant that the American cars are better than they used to be 20 years ago when I owned one, but sucky still sucks.

Bender Bending Rodriguez April 3, 2012 at 6:04 pm

There’s “Suck” and “Relative Suck”. An American car of 20 years ago would, on average, strand you on the road once or twice during the first 4 years*. Today, even the crappiest
car shouldn’t. It may gimp around and require dealer service, but you won’t actually need a tow truck.

*Going from memory on an article on vehicle quality.

Hillary April 3, 2012 at 8:19 pm

In 1997 my parents bought me a 1991 Ford Escort. The super-low-end hatchback without letters behind name, two door, with broken power steering. At the time my mom was driving a ~1993 Accord. The Escort was sold in 2003 for $200 to the high school cross country team, who planned to use it as an off-road dune buggy. The Accord was sold two years ago for almost $2000, and it’s still on the road.

I’ve heard and read that quality has improved dramatically on American cars and suffered on Japanese, but it hasn’t overridden experience yet. Fortunately I shouldn’t have to replace my 2004 Civic for another 3-5 years.

the spam robots are getting better and better April 3, 2012 at 8:47 pm

Like I said, prejudice takes much longer to undo than incompetent engineering.

GiT April 4, 2012 at 5:56 am

The general idea:

“Nothing remains to be desired but that the King, living quite alone on the island, should by continuously turning a crank cause automatons to do all the work of England.”

-Sismondi

Aditya April 3, 2012 at 7:40 am

Interesting views by the author on exports and why the future of the American economy depends on exports and manufacturing.Read an informative whitepaper on Manufacturing and exporting ‘Success within reach A guide to exporting ‘ , with related information you may find useful @ https://bitly.com/z9CP2A

The Anti-Gnostic April 3, 2012 at 8:07 am

First, artificial intelligence and computing power are the future, or even the present, for much of manufacturing. It’s not just the robots; look at the hundreds of computers and software-driven devices embedded in a new car. Factory floors these days are nearly empty of people because software-driven machines are doing most of the work. The factory has been reinvented as a quiet place. There is now a joke that “a modern textile mill employs only a man and a dog—the man to feed the dog, and the dog to keep the man away from the machines.”

Raising the question in my mind, yet again, why we are told over and over that there is an economic imperative for the US to import millions of low-skilled workers. This makes no sense if, as you seem to accept, we are striving for Solow’s model of high inputs per worker. Rather, current immigration policy seeks to drive down inputs to Third World levels. Which is great, if you’re an oligarch who wants to avoid disgorging profits for capital investment in favor of ever-cheaper and more desperate labor. I guess that’s the goal after all.

Miley Cyrax April 3, 2012 at 8:47 am

Surely even considering that we need more immigrants from high IQ countries and fewer from low IQ countries, and/or having our high IQ Americans breed more relative to our low IQ members (here legally or not), is unthinkable right?

Todd April 3, 2012 at 8:59 am

Tyler, I can’t remember you ever having blogged about the Enron Email Corpus. If you have, then I apologize, but it looks like a pretty interesting organizational and institutional communication research project.

http://sgi.nu/enron/

wiki April 3, 2012 at 9:52 am

Replicating the two-tiered economy of the Third World means replicating the Third World’s politics. Which means in the end, rent-seeking which will actively destroy America’s dynamism.

Mogden April 3, 2012 at 10:57 am

“In the end”, huh? Good one!

Scoop April 3, 2012 at 11:09 am

Having actually read the whole piece, here are some questions/responses/etc.:

1. Depending on how much gas we can produce, energy production alone would go a long way toward fulfilling Tyler’s prediction. About half the $500b trade deficit in 2010 was energy.

2. Labor saving technology might not increase U.S. exports so much as decrease our imports — and the imports of other countries as well. If production costs the same everywhere, then there’s no need to ship things around the world. (And countries might become more protectionist rather than less if being protectionist raised prices less.) Depends on economies of scale. Will it always be way cheaper to produce all the world’s iPads in one factory rather than 50?

3. Put a swing to net energy exports along with a big drop in imports and you become a net exporter, even if demand for U.S. stuff doesn’t actually rise much.

4. Even if everything pans out as Tyler says, it doesn’t help most Americans all that much. Our two big problems are entitlement commitments and finding magic that allows unintelligent, unproductive people to behave better and earn decent livings.

4a. Deficits: Even an extra $500 billion a year in energy production and an extra $500 billion a year in exports nets you, what?, another $100b a year in taxes. That’s hardly a drop in the current government deficit let alone the ones that are coming. I guess if Americans aren’t borrowing via individual consumption it will also make it easier for the government to borrow, but I don’t see this as doing all that much for the national finances, even under a best case scenario.

4b. As for helping ZMP workers, even Tyler admits that all those new factories have just one man and one dog. And I’m not sure energy will create all that many middle class jobs in the near future. Why won’t it get mechanized, too? Worse, all those jobs that can’t be exported, the ones in the protected tier that Tyler talked about, certainly can be automated. The two biggest unskilled jobs around — driver and cashier — will disappear and many of the entry level jobs in healthcare and education will go too.

5. Yet another piece of Tyler writing that logically leads to a place Tyler refuses to go: “So it’s clearly in the best interest of existing Americans to restrict immigration to bright, talented, healthy, young people.” Tyler’s rebuttal? It’s still fine to allow an unlimited stream of people with 90 IQs into the country. They’ll have open access to MIT classes, so the tiny contingent of high IQ workers won’t have to support them as well as the parents of everyone else with tax rates at 80 percent that will make us all poor. (Another possible rebuttal? Depending on how fast technology improves, even 120 IQs will become ZMP workers, not even a tad more valuable than today’s unskilled labor, so the real problem for the long term is how to structure a society where people no longer work and we’re all spongers off the machines. Will this be paradise or hell?)

Floccina April 3, 2012 at 12:32 pm

1. Depending on how much gas we can produce, energy production alone would go a long way toward fulfilling Tyler’s prediction. About half the $500b trade deficit in 2010 was energy.

The way that I see it the trade deficit is due to more savings in the China and other countries so that make up does not matter.

Scoop April 3, 2012 at 12:42 pm

I don’t understand what you’re asserting. Can you clarify?

Brett April 3, 2012 at 11:35 am

Good essay, Professor.

1. I don’t think you’ll see lasting economic success for some of the talented, highly-skilled machinists and operators in America’s factories. Their higher wages are a big incentive for the companies employing them to find ways to “dumb down” the production process, so that a lower-paid, lower-skilled worker can do it. We’ve seen that happen in several industrial revolution waves, such as the replacement of the highly skilled artisans in late 18th/early 19th century Britain with factories using low-skilled workers. It also has the advantage of making workers more replaceable, in an age of high labor turnover.

2. I’m not so sure Japan has moved on from beyond the Two-Tier Export Economy. Their Retail and Services Sectors are still highly inefficient compared to the US. It’s the same with South Korea.

3. I question that we’ll see the “protected Services Sector” stay protected for that long. Especially since the new IT technologies allow for large parts of service businesses to be outsourced to cheaper areas (or done with automation). Look at what’s happening with the legal sector, where they finally allowed for document review to be done by machines in New York State.

4. This all sounds like a recipe for social and political turbulence. Yes, most of the population in the US might be benefiting from cheaper goods and services, but the paycheck and job stability are far more visible to them.

Brian Timoney April 3, 2012 at 12:20 pm

1) Fracking may not be the magic bullet portrayed once the environmental issues are sorted out. You’re seeing much steeper decline rates in production in the “older” shale areas in Texas & Louisiana: your “decades” of forecasted production will have cost curves more challenging than what you find today. With natural gas prices making much of this new production uneconomic, one of the biggest players–Chesapeake Energy–has gone to, you guessed it, China, for large cash infusions. In the medium-run context of your essay, this may just be temporary data noise–but buy a couple of beers for someone following the industry closely and the default sanguine outlook becomes much more complicated.

2) More important are the costs of social cohesion as income disparities widen. One of the few remaining large-scale pathways to a middle-class life for those with more modest social capital is the US Military. Assuming that the last 10 years has weakened the appetite for large-scale land-war engagements, rebuilding the Navy from its anemic sub-300 ship level would be a no-brainer complement to this vision of globalization. Further, what the military offers the scale with which to meaningfully test what effective 21st century training/education might look like.

Interesting read; not sure if I’m ready to pick up the poms-poms.

BT

Capital intensive industries will be built in Obama-deficient countries April 3, 2012 at 1:02 pm

for starters, let’s just ignore the “poor” and “lower middle class” people. Let’s focus on the engineers and investors who are supposed to be building and running these hypothetical future high tech enterprises. If history is any guide, high tech manufacture is a capital intensive industry. Where do smart people like to invest large amounts of their precious capital? I will tell you where – in a place not governed by Barack Obama.

Incidentally, we have been here before. During 1930s Roosevelt administration the high taxes and other depredations of the socialist government drove many American rich people to invest in productive activities in Latin America. It also drove many others to not invest in any productive activities at all, instead putting it into government bonds (to help finance the Roosevelt regime). Well, what will happen in the future should be no different except worse, because Roosevelt was the paragon of sanity compared with the current “save the planet” Democratic party.

Pat MacAuley April 3, 2012 at 11:44 pm

After reading the entire article I think it’s better than average for this type of piece, but sadly ignores two obvious barriers to a successful Exporting America. First, the Value Added Tax receives special WTO status which makes it a brutal import barrier against US exports and an export subsidy for our competitors. All indications are that this problem will only get worse for US exporters. Second, the well-known currency-rigging problem prevents a comparative advantage equilibrium, and causes damage to US manufacturing industries that snowballs as the industrial base shrinks. Why ignore these immediate and difficult problems, and focus instead on Fracking?

Chesapeake 24 Hour Towing April 14, 2012 at 3:54 pm

Thank you for the good writeup. It in reality used to be a leisure account it. Glance advanced to far brought agreeable from you! However, how can we communicate?

Sourgeori May 1, 2012 at 8:25 pm

Hy everyone i am new here i would love so much to interact with the community here. I am actually providing some nice services at fiverr and trying to get me some cash for university.If you could give me a hand i am sure i can give you a hand too with you SEo related job. Only 5$
At this moment we can offer Senuke X services,Scrapebox service, Xrumer services. And many other services.
http://fiverr.com/backlinksolutio

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: