Re: The Economy IS The Colateral Damage of War on Terrorism.

["Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This e-mail just came in this morning - an example of the living reality of
free trade!  Shoes exprting from China at $0.70 a pair will sell in US stores
for $35 a pair or more.

Subject: 530000 Pairs of Stock Shoes
    Date:  Wed, 12 Dec 2001 22:56:42 +0800
   From: "humanlong" <chunpai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
      To:


Dear Sir, Madam,

Now, We have a huge stocks of approximate 530000 pairs of shoes, include
tennis shoes, sport shoes, children shoes, flying shoes, etc. We want to
clear these stocks, the minimum FOB price will be only USD  0.70 a pair, and
you may discuss these prices with us if your purchase quantity is big. Please
do not hesitate to contact us if you are interest in these stocks, we will
send you photos and details.
Thank you and best regards !


Sincerely
Mr. Long Tan     ( Satrap )
GUILIN TEXTILES IMPORT & EXPORT CORP.
Address: No. 229 Rongshan Road, Lingui, Guilin, China
Tel: +86-773-5592687
Fax: +86-773-5592687
E-mail: chunpai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Postalcode: 541100





"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote:

>       Said I wouldn't say more, but guess I will.
> When the issue of free trade came up, it was
> argued that the argument for it only held in full
> employment.  I don't think that is true.  The argument
> should hold as long as employment is constant even
> if less than full, that is as long as jobs lost in import
> competing sectors equal those gained in export
> sectors.  Just for anybody who has not been through
> the argument, the "gains from trade" are defined by
> real income, or the ability to purchase traded goods
> and services.  The argument shows in the static case
> that more are produced and consumed when there
> is specialization based on comparative advantage.
>       Now, I have already agreed that there are many
> exceptions to this, most of them involving dynamics.
> Thus, import substitution may be OK as in the infant
> industry case.  Economies of scale alter the dynamics
> story.  The issue of income elasticities of demand
> complicate dynamics issues, etc. etc.  And there are
> other reasons why one might very legitimately support
> protectionism for a variety of reasons.
>        However, in general employment is not one of
> those reasons.  There may be cases where employment
> might be hurt, ceteris paribus, by a free trade agreement.
> Paul Phillips may be correct that this is so for Canada,
> although I gather that it is at most a very weak effect.
> But, governments should coordinate to achieve full
> employment through macroeconomic policies, not through
> trade restrictions.  I note for Canada and the US and Mexico
> that they all experienced declining unemployment rates
> overall in the aftermath of the adoption of NAFTA.  But,
> I do not see that as due to NAFTA, just that NAFTA did not
> bring the disasters forecast by the likes of Ross Perot.  I
> find it weird that autoworkers in the US continue to
> hyperventilate against NAFTA and free trade, even though
> it is my understanding that employment in the US auto
> industry has actually risen since NAFTA was adopted (and
> prior to the 1980s, the AFL-CIO was pro free trade).
>       Just in case there is anybody out there who is convinced
> that free trade is inimical to full employment somehow, in and
> of itself, or, to pose the alternative, that trade protectionism
> is a useful way to achieve full employment, let me remind
> everybody of the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 in the US.  This
> tariff was passed to "protect American jobs."  We all know
> what happened to the US unemployment rate in its aftermath.
> Many economic historians believe that it was a contributing
> factor, although probably not as important as the macro
> policies associated with the failed effort to maintain the gold
> standard worldwide.  Such disasters can still happen.
>       So, I support restrictions on free capital movements and
> oppose using the rhetoric of "free trade" to implement
> agreements that bring about free capital movements.  But,
> although I think that there are cases where restrictions on
> trade (usually only temporary) can be defended, it remains
> for those who argue for such restrictions to make their case
> against the more general and pretty strong case for free trade.
> Barkley Rosser
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alan G. Isaac" <aisaac@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Post Keynesian Thought" <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 10:15 PM
> Subject: Re: The Economy IS The Colateral Damage of War on Terrorism.
>
> > Aside from its general oddity and lack of empirical foundation,
> > to find the argument that the extent of free trade will be
> > determinative of employment rates on a Post *Keynesian* list is most
> > peculiar.  Don't you think?
> > Alan Isaac
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 phillp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > Barkley, I think you are quite wrong about free trade not being a net
> > > job destroyer and that export jobs will offset jobs lost to imports
> > > (both in theory and in actual practice).  See the studies of Canada,
> > > the US and Mexico on the EPI website.  The Canadian study was
> > > based on a report to Industry Canada (which favours 'free trade') on
> > > the employment effects of FTA/NAFTA.  Using input-ouput
> > > statistics they estimate the loss of jobs due to exports  being less
> > > labour intensive than  (replacment) imports at around a quarter of a
> > > million.  The US study, using a slightly different methodology,
> > > found the net loss of US jobs at around 600,000+.  In Mexico,
> > > unemployment was very low both before and after NAFTA but real
> > > wages fell about 40% after NAFTA.  Many of the jobs created were
> > > in Maquiladora plants which source only about 2 per cent of their
> > > non-labour inputs from the Mexican economy.
> >
> >
> >