LyrArc Article Gist
Matthew Slaughter of the Tuck School, Dartmouth, says that the principle of comparitive advantage should determine what America exports and imports. Under comparitive advantage each country concentrates its energies on the particular goods and services that it does better than other countries. Free trade operates under the idea of comparitive advantage, but in practice it is quite different than its textbook economic counterpart. It is constantly changing as new countries or industries in different countries try to upset the existing pattern. Under a textbook example Airbus should not exist because Boeing was the most efficient manufacturer upto that time, and new entrants in a industry are nurtured for years with support from the governments of their countries. And in some situations the governments may exclude certain companies or industries from support such as Komatsu and construction equipment in postwar Japan, and Infosys and software outsourcing in India, and still survive and grow. Under comparitive advantage Japan should still be importing construction equipment from Caterpillar in the US, and there would be no serious competition in that industry. This would work to the detriment of the principle of competition in free trade which is just as important to free trade as the idea of comparitive advantage, with new entrants in an industry upsetting the old way of doing things and creating price/quality improvements. Slaughter simply pulls back off the shelf the old idea of comparitive advantage without seriously considering its real life aspects. Without dealing with trade distortion from currency manipulation, from the impact on jobs, without considering the continuing critical role of manufacturing in developed economies to provide the standards of living for a large middle class, and creating the kind of society that people of developed countries aspire to. He mentions GE's Immelt and the President's Council on Jobs, but makes no effort to engage Immelt 's statement in his recent op-ed article in the Washington Post, that the concept of transitioning from a export-oriented economic powerhouse to a services led consumption based economy could be done without loss of jobs, prosperity and prestige, was fundamentally wrong. He has only one line for manufacturing's role in America's economy. This line says knowledge intensive industries such as education and software are just as important as manufacturing, but fails to mention that manufacturing has received less attention in recent decades. In so doing he is discounting his own profession of concern for the high rate of joblessness in the U.S., and the need for a new focus on manufacturing in the U.S. to reverse that trend. By saying that imports are not a sign of failure but can raise standards of living, and leaving it at that, Slaughter does not acknowledge that consumer debt that US consumers have taken on in the process certainly affects future prospects for the US economy. And he makes no mention of the need for rebalancing the world economy, which is exactly how free trade should work ideally. Countries that have high imports export more to rebalance the world trading system, as currency valuations are allowed to adjust makig their exports more attractive. By not taking into account the realities of free trade, and the need for practical measures to rebalance without policy induced distortions by state run economies, Slaughter ignores the idea of free trade that works as it should and for all countries. The irony is that Immelt's own committment to jobs and competitiveness has been questioned in online blogs and most recently by an editorial in the Wall Street Journal on January 26, 2011, titled "The Misallocators." That editorial refers to the outsize role of GE Capital in GE's earnings during the past decade, and the lack of credibility of a focus on competitiveness and jobs that this creates for GE. It mentions the loss of 34,000 GE jobs in the US during the last decade. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Gordon Brown, former prime minister of Britain from 2007 to 2010, chaired the April 2009 G-20 meeting that came up with ways to tackle the global financial crisis. Brown also led the way by recapitalizing British banks, a step the U.S. followed. He comments on the volatility in financial markets in August 2007 following the S&P credit downgrade of the U.S.. Brown gives an incomplete grade to the tasks the 2009 G-20 set out to accomplish. He points to three goals the G-20 had set in the middle of the financial crisis in April 2009. The first was to prevent a recession from becoming a depression. The other two were to establish a financial stability regime, and a compact for growth. These two became paper promises says Brown. Brown sees the best approach to prevent a lost decade is for U.S. and Europe trading their way out of a downturn as the Asian market absorbs more industrial goods from Europe and the U.S. This includes policies that would keep commodity prices low and ways of coping with currency shocks. Analysts have pointed to an export led recovery as one of the solutions the U.S. was hoping to achieve with a lower value of the dollar. This has had only limited success because of deep structural problems- high consumer indebtedness, bad debt at the banks, weak housing sector following the mortgage crisis, and a rising U.S. deficit- which will take some time to clear. Brown does not come to grips with these underlying imbalances built up during the boom years of the last decade, both in Britain and in the U.S., during which he was the finance minister of Britain....

LyrArc Article Gist
Samuelson says the bill in the U.S. Senate is symbolic because it allows companies to cite the undervalued renminbi as an illegal subsidy and have the Commerce Department impose duties on Chinese products. This would have to be done on a case by case basis, making it largely ineffective in dealing with the large trade deficit with China. He also cites the differences among economists that show a range between 1 million and 2.8 million jobs lost. The 2.8 million jobs estimate is from the Economic Policy Institute for the period 2001-2010. The 1 million is an estimate for 1990-2007, which estimates a loss of quarter of all manufacturing jobs. By WTO rules subsidies that are not targeted at specific industries or firms are allowed, according to lawyers. Which means China could appeal to the WTO, and impose retaliatory duties. In the meantime the trade deficit with China, with imports of $364 billion in 2010, and $86 billion in exports, would remain largely unaffected. This is the reason some Senators, including Republican Orrin Hatch (Utah), see this move as political posturing by President Obama and the Democrats, because the administration has no new proposals to address the trade deficit and the gradual erosion of America's manufacturing base. Samuelson cites Arvind Subramanium of the Peterson Institute, and his book "Eclipse: Living in the Shadow of China's Economic Dominance." Subramanium says what is at stake is not a temporary imbalance in world trade a happened with Japan in the 1980's, but a gradual shift to a system of trade in which China has preferential access to raw materials (oil, grain, minerals), subsidizes exports in new industries as it moves upscale from shoes and textiles to automobiles, aircraft and alternative energy, and changes the very nature of the global trading system as it becomes the dominant trading nation in the world. By Subramanium's estimate China's share of global trade increased from 1.6% to 9.8% in the 2 decades from 1990 to 2010. In two more decades he estimates China could increase this to 15% of global trade, significantly larger than the U.S. In a response to Congressmen, businessmen and policymakers wary of starting a trade war, Samuelson says there already is a trade war as a "fixed" system of trade undermines America's manufacturing and industrial base. The only difference being that today only one side is fighting that war, and America is slow to grasp the implications or its policymakers are clueless how to respond....

LyrArc Article Gist
Samuelson points to the risks to the American economic growth from excessive health care costs. This is hurting take home pay and shows up in consumer spending. It is hurting government spending in other areas such as needed infrastructure spending and efforts to reduce the deficit. This hurts private capital investment to create jobs because of lower demand from constricted consumer spending. The U.S. budget has as its largest single expense 27% on health care compared to 20% on defense the next largest expense, with growth in health care spending taking this to one third of the budget in coming years. Without addressing health care, says Samuelson, the Supercommitte in Congress even if successful at deficit reduction will basically have failed to do its job, and it did not have the time, resources or conviction to do this. According to a new study from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), U.S. healthcare spending per person is $7,960 per person in 2009. This compares with Norway $5,352, Britain $3,487, France $3, 978, an OECD average of $3,233. Life expectancy in the U.S. is 78.2 years, compared to Japan 83 years, OECD average of 79.5 years. Chile and the Czech Republic have life expectancy equal to the U.S. Except for cancer care where the five year survival rate is 89.3% in the U.S. and the OECD average is 83.5%, the U.S. lags far behind in much needed critical areas such as diabetes and asthma. Rates of emergency hospitalization for asthma are 3 times that in France and 6 times that in Germany and Italy. The U.S. has fewer doctors per thousand population and higher cost per medical procedure- with more frequent use of the costliest procedures- creating a supply shortage that induces higher prices, and less preventive and early action care through physician visits. The number of practicing U.S. doctors is 2.4 per thousand population in the U.S. compared to 3.1 per thousand for the OECD average; and number of annual doctor consultations 3.9 per capita in the U.S. versus 6.5 for the OECD average. Appendectomy cost $7,962 in the U.S., $5,004 in Canada and $2,943 in Germany. Coronary angioplasty cost $14,378 in the U.S., compared to $9,296 in Sweden, and $7,027 in France. Knee replacement cost $14,946 in the U.S., $12,424 in France, and $9,910 in Canada. Knee replacements, angioplasties and MRI exams are twice as common in the U.S. compared to the OECD countries. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Bayer AG CEO Marijn Dekkers talks to the Journal's Geoffrey Rogow about the company's pharmaceuticals business and job retention. Dekkers says profits are reduced by the tight budgets of European governments and the pressure on pricing. He cites the 16% mandatory rebate in Germany on prescriptions. For Bayer diversification through the chemicals business offers a way to handle the ups and downs in the pharmaceuical business with patent expiration. He is not interested in acquisitions because of the high premium involved and the difficulty of recovering this for investors. Bayer like other drug companies has extensive operations in China. Bayer is training salespersons in top and second tier Chinese cities. It has a program to train 10,000 physicians in rural areas of China working with the local government. Dekkers makes an interesting point about jobs and job retention in the U.S. He says a lot of jobs were outsourced in the 1990's and its difficult to bring them back. Germany has done a better job with job retention with "kurzarbeit" and other programs working in partnership with industry. In his view this could have been managed better in the U.S. with active programs such as this in the last two decades....

LyrArc Article Gist
Chile, Mexico and the U.S. rank high in the diabetes rate for top soda consuming countries. In the U.S. the diabetes rate is at 7.7% of the population, in Chile 9.6% and Mexico 9%. Soda consumption per capita was at 165 litres in the U.S., 146 litres in Mexico and 134 litres in Chile, and 145 litres in Argentina where the diabetes rate is at 3.9%, for 2012. A new public service ad in Mexico City subway stations says it all, showing an ad with a soda bottle and the words- "Would you take 12 teaspoonfuls of sugar? Soda is sweet, diabetes isn't." The new Pacto de Mexico agreed to by all major political parties includes the soaring diabetes rate in Mexico as a problem to be tackled, including lunches at public schools and the consumption of coke and sodas by children. A particular acute problem in Mexico is the lack of clean drinking water in many areas and the dependence on coke and sodas for liquids. But bottled water could be used in its place if available at lower prices. One proposal is for a soda tax which could generate $2 billion and be used for setting up clean drinking water fountains in schools and other places. Elected officals in Mexico are firm about the need for action, as Mexico recently became the first country over 100 million inhabitants with the highest obesity rates at 7 adults out of 10 over the age of 20 obese or overweight, and the consequently high diabetes rate. Diabetes is the No. 2 killer in Mexico, and a serious health danger. Coca Cola gets its second highest revenues from Mexico after Europe, and the situation has evolved after years of heavy coke advertising to the point where Coca Cola is taken at every meal by some Mexican families, and is a sign of prestige. The company's response is to fight the public service ads with ads showing people burning off 149 calories by walking. The country now faces a long and uphill fight. Russia is one of the countries which is also conducting a similiar fight against soda drinks. The Bloomberg Philanthropy is financing efforts against soda drinks in Mexico, as part of its campaign against smoking and sodas as health hazards, and this maybe Bloomberg's bigger contribution to society than his service to New York City. Developing middle income countries such as Mexico, Chile, India, China, Brazil, are the hardest hit by soaring diabetes. And the costs to their health systems in 10-20 years from uncontrolled obesity and diabetes will be enormous. The U.S. is a developed country with similiar high rates of obesity and diabetes, with soaring medical costs, and serious problems that strangely have not received the public awareness and efforts that one should expect. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Lawrence Katz, Harvard labor economist, talks to Friedman about the jobs crisis in the U.S.. Katz identifies three jobs crises occurring at the same time today. One is the drop in the demand for goods and services that resulted from the longer term effects of the financial crisis of 2008, with rising foreclosures, weak housing markets, bad debt on the balance sheets of banks, and interest rates at close to zero reducing the scope of action by the Federal Reserve bank. The second, is the widespread long term unemployment with workers dropping out of the labor market. The third, is the nature of new factories and hiring. Work in new factories is done through increased automation, information technology and fewer workers. As a result job creation is a fraction of what it was in the past. Not mentioned here is the shrinking of the public sector under the strain of budget deficits for local, state and federal government. This leads to the question of how America will create jobs in the future. Katz believes the answer is creating more "hubs," networked urban areas like Austin, Silicon Valley, and Raleigh-Durham, by bringing together universities, high-tech manufacturers, software providers, and startup companies, to cooperate in creating new products that enhance people's lives worldwide. This has to be done by the private sector and government working together to build the infrastructure and make the investments in education, training of workers, and equipment for new job creation....