Not Really 'Made in China'
online.wsj.com
online.wsj.com
I think that all the article proposes changing is the way the total trade deficit is divided up between trading partners. However, looking at the balance of trade between a pair of countries rather than between one country and all other countries is pointless anyway.
Consider the following simplified situation: there are only three countries in the world, A, B, and C, equally affluent, and they all use one currency, $. A has a trade deficit of $1 billion to B, B has a trade deficit of $1 billion to C, and C has a trade deficit of $1 billion to A.
In the simplified scenario, there is no net transfer of wealth out of A, B, or C, because each has perfectly balanced trade - so there is nothing wrong with that picture.
In summary, the proper solution is to look at total balance of trade per country, not to get too hung up on balances of trade between pairs of countries. The article is trying to solve a non-existent problem.
Until recently the US measured exports purely in tonnage and then averaged their prices. So a ton of wheat = a ton of Windows DVDs
I think most outside observers of this three way arrangement would think it sounds fine, where the issues creep up is when foo production requires little labor and baz production is very labor intensive.
Here's the question I emailed to sjobs@apple.com last week:
Subject: Made in the US iPhone?
Hiya. I love my iPhone. I'd be willing to pay more than the $200 that I paid to AT&T if it were assembled in the US.
Do you think enough of the market would embrace a "Made in the US" iPhone version with a $100 (?) premium? Would that be enough of an increase to offset higher labor costs?
Cheers,
Sanjay
While the article plausibly argues that the cost of the iPhone should not be credited entirely to China, it still shows the iPhone as adding to the deficit - the cost should just be creditted to Japan, S. Korea, German and "others" instead of China.
Which isn't an indication that the US trade deficit is an illusion or anything...
I see the microeconomic benefits to individual companies: lower costs equals higher margins. Lower prices? You, mister CEO, are fired! Every econ freshman knows to calculate marginal profit times units sold to find the best price in terms of total profit, and the cost of the inputs often has little to do with it, except when elasticity of demand is very high. By and large, you charge what the market will bear, and pass the savings along to the shareowners (and the board and execs, of course)
Having every company outsource and import destroys "the commons" of a nation. Regardless of which other nation the money is going to.
We've had free trade with countries that have rather specific development plans and policies around industrial development - we know China does. But more significantly, one might well argue Germany's private-public cooperation/policy has been a big part of it remaining an honest-to-God industrialized nation.
So you're right, a monopolist does not care at all what the costs of the inputs are but with competition the result is cheaper consumer goods (which has its own vices but that's a different issue...)
Think about it; would you really want to live in a U.S. where every good was made in house? Your cashews would be very, very, very expensive.