"In 1820, 79 percent of Americans worked in agriculture. This number, however, was progressively reduced by improvements in technology. Chemical fertilizers and pesticides; mechanized planting and harvesting equipment; refrigeration; improved veterinary medicine; better irrigation; faster transportation; and improved packaging for produce – along with more food imports made possible, in part, by motorized sea and air travel – all “destroyed” millions of agricultural jobs."
Creative Destruction
How could we see it any other way?
One other way, I suppose, is to think of it like this. I mow my own grass. I don't feel like it's worth paying someone else forty or fifty dollars or more to mow my grass; it takes about an hour (if I could be employed at seventy five dollars an hour during the time I'm mowing the grass, I might see it differently). But what if I could get someone to mow my grass for less? At some point, between say a penny and fifteen dollars, I'll bet I'd be paying someone to do the job so I could hang out with my kids or wife.
In effect, that's the decision matrix we follow when buying foreign produced goods. We realize it's foolish to waste our own time doing something we can get for a price that's worth what we're paying. We don't make this decision collectively, we make it when we're doing our individual consumption. It 's also not bad for the same reason it wouldn't be bad for me to pay someone who's willing to do it fifteen bucks to mow my lawn.
Another thought - we had an inverse trade imbalance for a long time - why would presume that to be sustainable?
Lastly, the conversation on trade and 'foreign aid' should not be so bifurcated. The best foreign aid is buying stuff from countries emerging from poverty into second world status - for one, it works, and for two, it's voluntary; 'foreign aid' on the other hand doesn't work and amounts to stealing money from taxpayers to buy off and stabilize tyrants.
No comments:
Post a Comment