text:
Amy Willis
Econlib Virtual Reading Group: McCloskey's Why Liberalism Works
Holiday Reading, One Last Time
MORE Econlib Holiday Reading
Holiday Reading Roundup
#EconlibReads continues
New Videos on Adam Smith
#EconlibReads: The Saga Continues
Andrew P. Napolitano
A Tangled Web of Deception
A Lawless Political Assassination
Office Pool 2020
Shall Anyone Be Above the Law?
What's Wrong With FISA?
The Supreme Court and the Right To Keep and Bear Arms
Bill Sardi
The False Prop of 'Get Your Flu Shot'
The Unthinkable: Live 400-500 Years?
Death = Money on Wall Street
The Angry Grandma
Horrors in American Healthcare
The Holiday Heart Syndrome
Lew Rockwell's New Book
Shoring up a Dissolving Society
Tradition, Egalitarianism, and Immigration
Liberty's Obstacle
The Failure
The Rational Left
What Should I Ask Zach Weinersmith? What Should He Ask Me?
Don't Be a Modal Weasel
Say "Can't" With Care
Garett Jones on Open Borders: More Endogenous Than Thou
Garett Jones on Open Borders: A Belated Reply
The Speech of Heroes
Remember the NAIRU
Bullion Star
The shrinking window for anonymous exchange
LBMA claims record amount of gold in London's vaults
A new era of digital gold payments systems?
Quantum leap for banks as ABN AMRO questions gold price discovery
Behind enemy lines – Military use of gold coins as emergency money
Polish central bank airlifts 8000 gold bars (100 tonnes) from London to Warsaw
No Matter How Much Money the Fed Prints, We Still Can't Afford Nice Things
Chris Edwards
New York Shortchanged but NY Politicians No Help
New York vs. Florida on Bureaucracy
Neil Peart: An Appreciation
New York's Government Is Twice the Size of Florida's
Tax Migration New York to Florida
Migration to Low‐Tax States Continues
Crescent Dunes: Another Green Flop
Shifting Undercurrents In The US Stock Market
Silver Traders Big Trend Analysis – Part II
NASDAQ Set to Fall 1000pts In Early 2020, and What it Means for Gold
What does the global stock market contraction after the missile strike mean?
What To Expect In Early 2020
Metals & Miners Prepare For An Early 2020 Liftoff
Who Said Traders and Investor are Emotional Right Now?
Daily Pfennig
Where's The Mousetrap?
What Did China Give Up To Get The Currency Manipulator Tag Dropped?
U.S. Removes "Currency Manipulator" tag from China
Last Monday's Euphoria Has Faded Away…
Geopolitical Problems Arise, One Of The Reasons To Own Gold…
We Simply Refuse To Learn From Our Mistakes!
A Chuck Was Away Rally For The Currencies!
David Bier
The H-2A Touchback Requirement Makes No Economic or Security Sense
No Unusual Migration Trend for Mexicans to Justify Deporting Them to Guatemala
H-2A Guest Worker Minimum Wages Up in 2020, 57% above New State Minimums
Congressional Republicans Dominate High Immigration Periods
Biden Backs City-Sponsored Visas
Despite More Staff, CBP Says "No Resources" To Process Asylum Applicants At Ports
Most Central Americans Still Evade Mexican Migrant Crackdown
Economist: Your Freedom Is Dangerous Because You Might Set a Bad Example
Why Paternalists Keep Calling Us 'Irrational'
Why Paternalists Keep Calling Us "Irrational"
Is Greater Productivity a Danger?
Why Marx Was Against Individual Rights
Zingers from Ronald Coase
Landsburg's Book on Milton Friedman
Some Recollections about G. Warren Nutter
Loury and McWhorter on the 1619 Project
State Capacity versus Libertarianism
Mark Cuban Probably Spouts Nonsense
Second Richest Man Spouts Nonsense
The Swamp Strikes Back—How Trump Is Being Maneuvered By The GOP Neocons
Don Boudreaux
More on America's Ignoble Experiment
David Hart on Frederic Bastiat
Bonus Quotation of the Day…
Doug Casey
The Difference Between a Whistleblower and a Rat
Top 7 Predictions for the 2020s
Facial Recognition and the Rise of Tech
'This is Going To Be One for the Record Books'
Why Having a US Passport Is No Longer an Advantage
The Crisis 'Medicare for All' Will Cause
The Destruction of the Dollar
Eric Peters
Minding Your Mood
The Tractor Backlash
Tesla's 14th Victim…So Far
Coonman's 'Tax Relief'
Orange Man Lobs One at Tesla
Who Pays for the $1,500 Headlight?
The End of the American Car?
The Bank of England's Governor Fears a Liquidity Trap
More Money Creation Won't Create More Economic Growth
Money, Expectations, and Economic Growth
Economic Stats Won't Tell Us What Really Causes Recessions
To Be Useful, Data Needs Theory
Good Economic Theory Focuses on Explanation, Not Prediction
Why Central Banks Aren't Really Setting Interest Rates
Gary D. Barnett
The Vaccine Cover-up and the Massive Corruption at the Top: This Is a Pharmaceutical Driven Agenda
The Constitution, War Powers, Congress, and the American Military: A Study of Betrayal
What is the Real Deception when Liars, Cheaters, and Thieves Control the Narrative?
The Afghanistan Papers Propaganda at the WashPo Fooled Many
The Federal Reserve Is the Most Dangerous Enemy of the U.S. and Its Economy
Federal Reserve Will Pump Half a Trillion Dollars in One Month: A Sign of Sheer Panic
Is the Human Species Naturally Good or Naturally Evil?
Hunter Hastings
Chris Casey's Journey to a Distinctively Austrian Financial Services Business
John Chisholm: The Tools and Techniques for Success in the Entrepreneurial Process
Eight Actions You Can Take Now to "Austrianize" Your Business
2019 In Review: Four Principles Of Austrian Economics You Can Usefully Apply To Your Business
Mark Packard on the Value Learning Process
Vito Bialla Defines a Core Attribute of Entrepreneurship
Stephen Denning: There's a Revolution in Value — It's Austrian and It's Agile
Sedition in Real Time
How's This Working, Nancy?
Some Other People Do Some Other Things
Forecast 2020 — Whirlin' and Swirlin'
Evidence of Absence
Christmas in Flyover Land
Reindeer Games
Jason Brennan
It's EA to Say Voting Is EA Even Though It Isn't EA
Voting as Conspicuous Caring
Why the Politicization of History Is So Disturbing
Weaponizing Principles and Methods
The Dangers of Recruiting Low-Income, First Generation College Students into Academia
*Injustice for All: How Financial Incentives Corrupted and Can Fix the US Criminal Justice System*
No One Is Really a Democrat
David Rosenberg on Stocks, Bonds, Commodities & Gold for 2020
Mixed Safe Haven Messages
Bond Worries & Gold
Alasdair Macleod and Michael Oliver Agree on Outlook
Making Money in Mining Stocks in 2020 Part II
Thoughts on Tyler Cowen's "State Capacity Libertarianism"
The Battle in the War of Ideas
Politics Drops Its Pretenses
What Would Mises Think About the West Today?
Austrian Economics Looks East
Jennifer Huddleston
Considerations for North Dakota regarding Consumer Data Privacy Policy
Breaking Up 'Big Tech' is the Latest 'techlash,' but What Would it Actually Do?
Should Congress be Concerned About California's Data Privacy Law?
Alabama's First 200 Years of Innovation
Time to move tech policy (and our fears) into the 21st century
State Data Privacy Laws May Well Be Unconstitutional
From Pat to Alexa
Decade of Living Dangerously, Part 2
Prelude to Crisis
Time to Do the Hard Thing
Inflationary Angst
Advice Worth Taking
Red Flag Nation: Anti-Gun Laws, Sanctuary Cities, and the Second Amendment
Come Home, America: Stop Policing the Globe and Put an End to Wars-Without-End
Nullify Government Tyranny: In 2020, Harness the Power of Your Discontent
War Is Over If You Want It: Pointers for Spreading Some Christmas Cheer
The Child That Christmas Forgot: How Would Jesus Fare in the American Police State?
Sin Taxes & Other Orwellian Methods of Compliance That Feed the Government's Greed
Impeach the Government: Rogue Agencies Have Been Abusing Their Powers for Decades
Opioid Crisis — A Result of Poverty, Availability, and Pain
Iron Overload Destroys Mitochondria and Sabotages Health
Documentary: High Mowing Organic Seeds for a New Food System
Google and Big Tech Bought Congress
Excess Sleep Can Increase Stroke Risk by 85%
Simple Strategies That Will Help You Live Longer
10 Ways To Live Longer
Joseph T. Salerno
The Place of 'Human Action' in the Development of Modern Economic Thought
The Place of Human Action in the Development of Modern Economic Thought
Paul Volcker: The Man Who Vanquished Gold
John Law and His Modern Counterparts
The Nationalist Case for Free Trade
Mises's Favorite Anglo-American Economists
Laurence M. Vance
Should Christians Pray for the Troops?
Why Do Christian Groups Support Anti-Christian Legislation?
The Madness of the Military Mindset
Democrats and the Constitution
You Just Think You Have the Right To Refuse Service
Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.
Working Around Leviathan
Butler Shaffer, RIP
Hazlitt and Keynes: Opposite Callings
A Message from Lew Rockwell
Ron Paul, Hero
How Central Banks Fund Our Age of Endless War
Ludwig von Mises, Hero
How Do We Calculate Value?
How to Write and Understand History
Economics and the Revolt against Reason
The Boom Is Worse than the Bust
There Is No End to History, No Perfect Existence
Marxism and the Manipulation of Man
Madsen Pirie
Rhode Island's wage and price controls
Robert Mugabe's paper money
Ronald Coase studied real markets
When Spain became a democracy post-Franco
The end of the Soviet Union
Understanding Newton's universe
Michael Maharrey
Fed Still Running Repo Operations; Will They Ever End?
Fun on Friday: Bust That Piggy Bank!
Fun on Friday: I Hereby Resolve…
A Trend Worth Considering – The Price of Gold Since 1971
Fun on Friday: Moving Is Awful
Peak Irony: Fed Paper Admits Fed Policy Can Lead to Economic Ruin
Fun on Friday: Golden Music to My Ears
7 Major Earth Changes That Are Happening Right Now That Everyone Needs To Know About
Why Are Volcanoes All Over The Globe Suddenly Shooting Giant Clouds of Ash Miles into the Air?
More Than 1000 Earthquakes Have Hit Puerto Rico, and Authorities Say It Is Being "Squeezed" Between Two Tectonic Plates
Armies of Unidentified Drones Are Appearing Over the Western US at Night, And It Is Really Freaking People Out
If You Are Still Watching Netflix, You Are Part of the Problem
This Is America: 10 Examples That Show How Dramatically the US Has Changed As We Approach 2020
47 Percent of GDP – This Is Definitely the Scariest Corporate Debt Bubble in US History
Could Trump's Next Fed Chair Be A "Goldbug?"
EEUU a Irak: «voten todo lo que quieran, no nos vamos a ir».
US to Iraq: 'Vote All You Want, We're Not Leaving!'
Un asesinato político sin ley
President's Impact Report — Fourth Quarter 2019
Cómo los EEUU hacen la guerra para sostener el dólar
Murray N. Rothbard
Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature
The Many Ways Governments Create Monopolies
Conservation in the Free Market
Government, Business, and American Economic History, Part 2
Ludwig von Mises and His Economics
The Foundation of Austrian Economics
No Author
Impeachment: Do Republicans Have More Fun?
The Russian Prime Minister Resigns
Burnout Linked to Atrial Fibrillation and Irregular Heartbeat
Trump's EU Poodles – Germany, Britain And France – Obey His Order To Kill the Nuclear Deal With Iran
No Creed? No Surprises in NuChurch!
The Culture War Comes to the Old Dominion
Baghdad Wants Us Out. Let's Go!
Our Real Existential Crisis
Will War Derail Trump's Re-election?
Today France, Tomorrow the USA?
Is Impeachment Backfiring on the Dems?
Peak Prosperity
Daily Digest 1/17 – Good News Friday: Teen Discovered New Planet 6.9 Times Bigger Than Earth, World's Last Known 'Dinosaur Trees' Saved
Daily Digest 1/16 – Stocks climb new peaks on trade deal, Trump tax cut hands $32 billion windfall to Banks
Falling Through The Cracks
Daily Digest 1/15 – Venezuela's Maduro hikes minimum wage 300 percent, Global debt hits new record of $253 trillion
Daily Digest 1/14 – Peak Permian Oil Output Is Closer Than You Think, China Tariffs to Stay Put
The One Good Thing About The Fed
G. L. S. Shackle on Alan Coddington's THEORIES OF THE BARGAINING PROCESS
Mont Pelerin Society in 2020
Working With Great People — F. A. Hayek Program Academic Productivity 2010-2020
A Decade in Political Economy
A Decade of SDAE Presidential Address
Your 2019 Nobel Prize Lectures for Economic Science
Forgotten or Neglected Classics in Economics that Modern Students Should Be Reading
Who Targeted Ukraine Airlines Flight 752? Iran Shot It Down, But There May be More to the Story
Trump and Congress Double Down on Demonizing Iran
America the Repugnant
The Soleimani Assassination: The Long-Awaited Beginning of The End of America's Imperial Ambitions
The Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act: Why Washington Is Both Corrupt and Ignorant
An End to the World as We Know It?
The Afghanistan Fiasco and the Decline and Fall of the American Military
Ah, If H.L. Mencken Were Back!
Manufacturing: An Example of Industrial Policy
The Simple Economics of Comparative State Lying
The United States Killed Soleimani, Right?
Four Economic Lessons from the Nativity
Another War on Drugs and on Certain Citizens
Is the Fall of Unemployment Good?
Bob Murphy Show Ep. 93: Lindsay Goldwert on Stand Up Comedy and Standing Up For Yourself
Murphy Twin Spin
How Great Men Allocate Their Time
BMS ep. 92: FBI Spying and the Gaslighting of America
BMS ep. 91: Bryan Caplan on Open Borders and His Critique of Austrian Economics
Should We Trust the Climate Models? Part 2 of 3
BMS ep. 90: Trump's Ukraine Call Was Small Potatoes
The History and Structure of the Federal Reserve System
FBI Spying and the Gaslighting of America
Why Trump's Ukraine Call Was Small Potatoes
"Rules of Origin" Show Why Trade Agreements Aren't Free Trade
Bernie Sanders and Robert Reich Don't Just Want to Tax the Rich, They Want to Abolish Billionaires
A College Student Interviews Bob About How Libertarians View the World
Roderick Long
Molinari Society Location Update
Molinari Review I.2: What Lies Within?
Anarchy in Philadelphia
I Get Ink
Islamic Wine-Goblets and Christian Adultery
Defending Self-Ownership
Why I Don't Trust Trump on Iran
Should Racists and Sexists Get Health Care?
How Congress and the Federal Reserve Stole Christmas
The Crime of the Century
Congress Is Trump's Co-Conspirator Against Liberty
Fight Another 'Terror War' Against Drug Cartels? There's a Better Way!
The US Obsession with Sanctions May Destroy the Dollar
A Fearful Fed Keeps Pouring Money into the Repo Market
If Trump Decides to Start a Nuclear War, No One Can (Legally) Stop Him
Money Supply Growth Surged to a 33-Month High in November
Now Is the Time to De-Escalate War with Iran
The US's Latest Bombing Shows the US Lost the Iraq War
SchiffGold
Fun on Friday: Florida Man…
Deal or No Deal? SchiffGold Friday Gold Wrap Jan. 17, 2020
The Outlook for Gold in 2020 Remains Bullish
Peter Schiff: The Art of the Fake Trade Deal
Peter Schiff: Americans Are in for a Rude Awakening
Spending Us Into Oblivion: Federal Budget Deficit Tops $1 Trillion in 2019 Calendar Year
US Foreign Policy, Oil and the Dollar
NeoFisherism and QE pessimism
Black swans and eels
You can't have it both ways
Monetary policy: Better to expect too much than too little
Do big cities help economic growth?
Bryan's 20-20 vision.
Price flexibility is stabilizing
Shannon Dailey
New Research on FDA Reforms, California Housing Policies, Housing Affordability and Regulatory Reform, and Michigan CON Laws
The 12 Economists of Christmas: Ludwig von Mises
The 12 Economists of Christmas: Henry Hazlitt
A Christmas Carol: Do-Gooders in Dickensian Times
Research on Government-Subsidized Health Insurance, Anti-Aid Provisions, Occupational Licensing in West Virginia, and Higher Education's Future in the Labor Market
New Research on Delivery System Innovation and Medicaid Expansion
New Research on Quantifying Regulation, Insider Trading Reform, and Regulatory Accumulation
Stacy Herbert
[KR1489] Keiser Report: What Came First, the Chicken or the Fed?
[KR1488] Keiser Report: Capitalism Without Capital
[KR1487] Keiser Report: Permanent War, Permanent Repo
Front Running – Green New Deal
[KR1486] Keiser Report: Vietnam for a 'Decent Standard of Living'
[KR1485] Keiser Report: Stock Markets Party Like It's 1999
[KR1484] Keiser Report: Hard Money, Passive Indexation
Thomas Luongo
Impeachment, Soleimani, and the Pull of the Swamp
After Missiles Fly, Iraq Becomes the Battleground
After Soleimani Killing, Suddenly the US Is Alone
2019: The Year the Neocons Failed
Trump's Point of No Return
Did Pompeo Go Off the Reservation in Iraq Attack?
Did Macron and Johnson Negotiate a Hard Brexit in October?
How nice of the NHS to prove the Laffer Curve
So that's another third off corporation tax then
Sure we should have four day working weeks – the US already does
We can see why they're doing the wrong thing
This being the basic problem with international negotiations
Our perverted measures of affordable housing
Quite so, this is rather the point of doing Brexit in the first place
Tom Woods
Ep. 1572 Appeasing the Left Is a Fool's Errand
Ep. 1571 Can You Avoid Being a "Wage Slave"?
Another High-Profile Deplatforming Today; Bad People Cheer
Ep. 1570 The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly from the American Economic Association Meeting
Ep. 1569 Murray Rothbard and the Betrayal of the American Right
Ep. 1568 Scott Horton on the Killing of Soleimani
Ep. 1567 Jeff Deist on the Trouble with Libertarian Technocrats
Now, Everyone Pays The Piper: The End Of China's Economic Miracle
Retail Carnage Continues: Bose Lays Off 100s, Shutters All Retail Stores
Western Media Coverage Of Russia As An Exercise In Propaganda
Middle Age Misery Peaks At 47 For Most Americans, Study Finds
The Population Collapse Behind Rates, Debt, & The Asset Price Explosion
Climate-Kids' "Trump Is Endangering Our Future" Case Crushed By 9th Circuit Court
Got Gold? – David Rosenberg Warns "We're Going To Have Helicopter Money"
Walter E. Williams
Unappreciated Crime Costs
The New Racism
Colleges Dupe Parents and Taxpayers
Virginia's Second Amendment Attack
Your Sex Is Not Optional
The Morality of Free Markets
Fraud in Higher Education
William Yeatman
It's the Knick of Time for States to Revisit Overbearing Land Use Regulations
How to Make Congress Great Again
Wall Street Journal Editorial Board Misses the Mark on Congressional Staffing
The Autobahn to Car Consumer Hell Is Paved with the Best Intentions
Vox Misses Mark on Institutional Primacy in Contemporary Federal Policymaking
Baldwin v. United States Reflects Worst Practices on Judicial Deference
Cato Piques U.S. Steel in Tariffs Case
Nutty Bond Wonderland in Europe Just Reached New Heights of Madness
EQT, Largest US Natural Gas Producer, Takes $1.8 Billion Write-Down, Admits it Can't Succeed in Low-Price Shale-Gas Environment
32 Misinformation Schemes & Other Tactics Used by Wall Street, Corporate America & the Media, as Pointed Out Hilariously by WOLF STREET Commenters
Back to Economicblogs
Go to Central Banks
Go to European
Go to Heterodox
Go to Leaders
Go to Swiss
Go to Macro
Home / Mercatus Center / New Protectionism: Still Protectionism and Bad Economics
New Protectionism: Still Protectionism and Bad Economics
Veronique De Rugy November 6, 2019	Mercatus Center
My articles My siteMy booksAbout me
Follow on:Twitter
For several years now, news headlines have reflected anxieties about the effects of globalization and freeing trade: Will jobs evaporate? Does China have an "unfair" advantage? Is the middle class disappearing? These fears need to be addressed, because they have resulted in the implementation of misguided policy prescriptions. All too often, these policies have hurt the very Americans they were supposed to help. Among these prescriptions has been the use of tariffs and quotas, which restrict trade. Proponents offer various justifications for such protectionist policies. Some of the most common include "they do it" (i.e., other governments subsidize their exporters or impose high tariffs on imports from the United States), the notion that the United States and other developed countries owe
Veronique De Rugy considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Tom Woods writes Ep. 1572 Appeasing the Left Is a Fool's Errand
Tyler Durden writes Now, Everyone Pays The Piper: The End Of China's Economic Miracle
Tyler Durden writes Retail Carnage Continues: Bose Lays Off 100s, Shutters All Retail Stores
Tyler Durden writes Western Media Coverage Of Russia As An Exercise In Propaganda
Occupational Licensure Will Not Ensure the Provision of Capable and Competent Music Therapy Services
Economic Freedom and Materialism
Regulators Wonder if Cancer Patients 'Need' New Treatments
For several years now, news headlines have reflected anxieties about the effects of globalization and freeing trade: Will jobs evaporate? Does China have an "unfair" advantage? Is the middle class disappearing? These fears need to be addressed, because they have resulted in the implementation of misguided policy prescriptions. All too often, these policies have hurt the very Americans they were supposed to help.
Among these prescriptions has been the use of tariffs and quotas, which restrict trade. Proponents offer various justifications for such protectionist policies. Some of the most common include "they do it" (i.e., other governments subsidize their exporters or impose high tariffs on imports from the United States), the notion that the United States and other developed countries owe their prosperity to high tariffs during the time of industrialization, and the belief that a value-added tax (VAT) provides an unfair advantage to exporters in countries that have one.
Most of these arguments rest on a misunderstanding of history, of economics, or of both. Protectionism might benefit favored interest groups, but it hurts American consumers and workers.
The Lesson of History and Economic Growth
Historically, tariffs have not helped economic growth. Whether one considers the United States before World War I, the countries of the "East Asian miracle" in the middle of the 20th century, or China after that, freer markets and lower barriers to trade were key in promoting economic growth and reducing poverty.
The United States Grew Despite, Not Because of, Tariffs before 1913
For much of its history, the US government relied on tariffs as its main source of revenue. It did so until it adopted the personal income tax in 1913 and gradually increased this tax's rates and base. During the time that the government relied on tariffs, the American economy grew rapidly—faster, in fact, than that of the United Kingdom, which then had far fewer tariffs.
Policy analyst James Pethokoukis provides some figures:
The U.S. economy grew rapidly in the late 19th century. (Real GDP grew by nearly 4 percent annually from 1870 to 1913, while GDP per capita grew by nearly 2 percent annually. Both figures are roughly twice Great Britain's performance over the period.) . . . (Between 1860 and 1900, the average tariff on durable imports averaged 40–45 percent, never falling below 38 percent or rising above 52 percent.)
This chronological correlation between tariffs and economic growth in the United States has led some, including President Trump, to argue that tariffs caused growth. However, as economists know, correlation is not causation. In fact, there is evidence that the United States became rich in spite of these tariffs.
First, until the New Deal the federal government was small—the federal budget consumed on average less than 3 percent of the economy's output. Contrast this with the current situation, in which the government consumes about 22 percent of GDP. Also, save for a few years, there was no personal income tax in the 19th century. There were also no payroll taxes, no capital gains taxes, no death taxes, and no corporate taxes—all of which have been shown to reduce growth because of their distortive effects.
Second, economist and trade historian Douglas Irwin points out that "rather than higher tariffs causing higher growth, the relationship could be spurious: land-abundant countries relied on customs duties to raise government revenue and also enjoyed favorable growth prospects, with little link between the two." The United States is one of the land-abundant countries, which suggests that this correlation between growth and tariffs is likely just that: a correlation.
Also, as Irwin notes, the sectors of the 19th-century American economy that grew the most—services and agriculture—were not much affected by the tariffs. "It appears that trade-related factors were not critical to the overall growth and expansion of the American economy."
The distortions caused by the tariff rates were also relatively small in spite of the rates' magnitude. As Irwin explains, "The reallocation of labor brought about by the tariff was relatively modest, and the productivity consequences were small as well." In addition, 19th-century national economies weren't anywhere near as integrated with each other as such economies are today—another factor that reduced the effect of high tariffs during that period.
In addition, while the 19th-century US government imposed steep tariffs on dutiable imports, the United States imposed zero duties on another very common foreign import: labor. Between 1865 and 1910, immigration to the United States increased from about 200,000 individuals a year to more than 1,000,000, with almost no restrictions whatsoever.
In a paper analyzing tariffs, immigration, and economic insulation after the Civil War, economists Cecil Bohanon and T. Norman Van Cott argue persuasively that attempts to assess the impact of protectionist tariffs on economic growth lead to questionable conclusions if these attempts ignore the massive in-migration that occurred because of the open-immigration policy of the 19th-century United States:
"The thrust of our analysis is that substantial immigration makes the protectionist label for the United States and by extension for Argentina and Canada not so much wrong as irrelevant. The impact of high tariffs, clearly an insulating policy, was swamped by free immigration, a quintessential policy of economic openness."
Finally, Irwin notes that the United States was wide open to foreign capital investment during the high-tariff period. This investment resulted in the trade deficit but also contributed to a burst of new technology and ideas. In other words, except for tariffs on a limited array of goods, the US economy was extremely open.
It is misguided to hope that high tariffs today will generate strong economic growth. First, academic research has revealed that the high growth rates of the past existed in spite of the high tariffs, not because of them. Second, the current array of government interventions and the state of the US economy are quite different from those of the late 19th century. Globally integrated supply chains, the present restrictive immigration policy in the United States, the current US tax system with its income and payroll taxes, and the sheer size of trade in the US economy today mean that imposing 1800s-level tariffs would more likely be catastrophic than growth-enhancing.
The East Asian Miracle Happened Despite Protectionism and Industrial Policy
One very common argument made in favor of raising trade barriers is that growth in China, Japan, South Korea, and other Asian countries that are rich today was enhanced by protectionist policies these countries pursued in the past. For instance, South Korea's industrial takeoff in the 1960s happened behind high tariff barriers. Japan protected its nascent domestic car industry from foreign competition for 40 years after World War II. A similar protectionist story can be told about Taiwan and about China, whose regulated and manipulated state-capitalist economy featured some protection of its markets from imports yet grew by nearly 10 percent per year for decades.
The existence of protectionist barriers does not mean that they helped fuel economic growth, however. In fact, the data fail to support the hypothesis that protection helped these economies grow.
The Asian Tigers grew for many reasons. A 1993 World Bank report describes the East Asian miracle, when the economies in the region grew faster than in all other regions of the world and managed to sustain that growth over a long period. Most of this achievement was due to unusually high growth rates in Japan, the four Asian Tigers (Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan), China, and the newly industrialized Southeast Asian economies (Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand).
It is true that Asian countries have grown very fast. It is also correct that some of them have, or have had, some protectionist barriers in place. But it doesn't follow that this protectionism led to the growth. Again, correlation isn't causation.
The World Bank analysis of the East Asian miracle concludes that
private domestic investment and rapidly growing human capital were the principal engines of growth. . . . And some of these economies also got a head start because they had a better-educated labor force and a more effective system of public administration. In this sense there is little that is "miraculous" about the [high-performing Asian economies'] superior record of growth; it is largely due to superior accumulation of physical and human capital.
While the report notes that "in most of these economies, in one form or another, the government intervened—systematically and through multiple channels," the authors also conclude that "it is very difficult to establish statistical links between growth and a specific intervention and even more difficult to establish causality."
Economist Arvind Panagariya points out that in Taiwan, "sectors that showed the best performance on the export front were invariably labor intensive and were not subject to selective targeting. In Taiwan, the share of public sector in industrial and manufacturing outputs also fell over time."
The story of South Korea until the early 1970s is very similar to that of Taiwan. Panagariya notes that when all trade interventions are aggregated, there remains only a small net bias in favor of exports relative to a free-trade regime. After careful examination and response to free-trade skeptics, he concludes that "once we look at the evidence carefully, Korea supports the case for outward orientation, rather than protection, interventionism, and infant industry protection."
China grew once it opened its markets. Nobel Prize–winning economist Ronald Coase and his coauthor Ning Wang demonstrate that China's impressive growth, similarly, was the product of free-market reforms and happened in spite of the protectionist measures in place. Trade economist Nicholas Lardy shows that China's growth since 1978 has actually been the product of market-oriented reforms, not state-owned programs, with about 70 percent of China's GDP produced by private firms in 2012. Detailing the toll on the Chinese economy of the recent increase in ambitious industrial policies and the growth of the state-owned sector, Lardy concludes that unless China reverses course, the growing weight of state-owned enterprises, government debt, and malinvestments will result in China's growth withering away.
As Panagariya points out,
"A common argument made by critics is that if we take a snapshot of a rapidly growing economy such as Taiwan in the 1960s or China in the 1980s, we would observe continuing high levels of protection. . . . If protection was indeed the source of rapid growth in these cases, its reduction during the following years should have led to a decline in the growth rate. But the opposite was observed when Taiwan in the 1970s and China in the 1990s and 2000s opened their economies further."
Open economies grew faster than closed ones. A recurring finding of economic research is that open economies have historically exhibited better economic performance in countries at all levels of development; increased the standards of living of consumers, producers, and workers alike; and lifted millions out of poverty. In a report titled "Why Open Markets Matter," the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development explains that "relatively open economies grow faster than relatively closed ones, and salaries and working conditions are generally better in companies that trade than in those that do not. More prosperity and opportunity around the world also helps promote greater stability and security for everyone."
Hong Kong never had and still doesn't have protectionist policies in place. Singapore, apart from an experiment with low-grade import protection, has embraced free trade. Yet both Hong Kong and Singapore grew rapidly and are today among the most prosperous economies in the world. Hong Kong is a case worth highlighting. Thanks to its history of free trade under British rule and its current special status in China, Hong Kong is widely regarded as one of the least restrictive economies in the world. Among the policies that have fueled its growth is unilateral free trade.
In 1950 Hong Kong's average per capita income was about one-third the average per capita income in the United States, but by 2017 Hong Kong's was slightly higher. In 1960 life expectancy in Hong Kong was three years shorter than in the United States, whereas by 2017 it was five years longer. While free-market policies in addition to free trade contributed to Hong Kong's economic success, at the very least unilateral free trade hasn't prevented Hong Kong's transformation into one of the richest economies in the world.
Prosperity Is Linked with Free Trade
Ultimately, Panagariya marshals considerable evidence and sound theory, and concludes that
"at the aggregate level, [there is] very substantial evidence connecting growth and trade openness. Even econometric studies have come a long way toward establishing causation between trade and per capita GDP. Free trade critics, on the other hand, have provided nothing that comes even close to this evidence in support of their case. Their argument that the experience during the 1960s and 1970s demonstrates the superiority of import substitution over outward orientation fails miserably: it is in fact the post-trade-liberalization era of the 1990s and 2000s that exhibits the highest growth rates in the developing countries taken together."
Changes in Employment and Equality: What Happened to American Manufacturing and the Middle Class?
It is undeniable that over the past 50 years the number of US manufacturing jobs has decreased, both in absolute terms and as a share of nonfarm jobs. In 1970 about 18 million Americans—or 25 percent of all nonfarm employees in the country—worked in manufacturing. This number peaked in 1979, at 20 million. But just 13 million Americans work in manufacturing today, and manufacturing workers represent only 8.5 percent of nonfarm workers (see figure 1).
A desire to reverse this trend and "bring manufacturing jobs back to America" is behind recent demand for protectionism to help American workers and firms, particularly those in the manufacturing sector. Historically, union manufacturing jobs were viewed as a way into the middle class, and the trend of shrinking numbers of such jobs stokes fears about a "hollowing out" of the middle class. The reality is far more complicated, and the policy ideas being offered are no solution to the perceived problem.
Declining US Manufacturing Employment Accompanies Increasing Manufacturing Output
The data do not support a deindustrialization narrative. While employment in manufacturing has decreased significantly, US manufacturing output is near an all-time high (with $2.17 trillion in value added in 2017) thanks to a spectacular increase in productivity. US manufacturing represents 12 percent of the nation's output and 18 percent of the world's manufacturing capacity (second only to China's portion; see figure 2). In addition, industrial capacity—the existing ability of American factories and workplaces to produce industrial output—is higher now than at any time in the past.
The vast majority of manufacturing job losses are the result of productivity growth brought about by labor-saving innovation, not the result of trade. In fact, research consistently shows that international trade has accounted for at most 20 percent of the reduction in US manufacturing employment. Technological progress has been far more disruptive to manufacturing employment than has trade, and it has resulted in much higher wages for those still employed in manufacturing.
Resorting to protectionist measures will not bring back manufacturing jobs because technological innovation, not trade, is the main driver of the change in the manufacturing sector. Furthermore, higher productivity means higher wages for manufacturing workers. It is doubtful that those who are calling for a return to the labor-intensive manufacturing era are also willing to accept the reduction in wages that would necessarily follow as people replace machines.
Is the Middle Class Shrinking?
The US middle class has been gradually shrinking. A look at the Census data reveals that the share of US households making between $35,000 and $100,000 (in inflation-adjusted dollars) went down from 53.8 percent to 41.3 percent between 1967 and 2017. The data also show that the share of households making more than $100,000 has increased during the same period, from 9 percent to 29 percent. Finally, the share of households making less than $35,000 has shrunk from 37.2 percent to 29.5 percent. (See figure 3.) In other words, the middle class may be shrinking (and so is the lowest-income class), but that's because more households have moved to the higher income levels.
There are Reasons to Care about the Reduction in Manufacturing Employment
Some sectors of the economy have indubitably struggled in recent years to adapt to significant disruptions. Workers have lost their jobs and never recovered, and some areas in the United States have experienced economic decline. Yet change is part of life and an inescapable element of economic growth.
Slower-than-usual economic adjustments after a shock, whether because of trade, automation, or innovation, have a real cost to those on the receiving end of the failure to adjust. This slowing-down of Americans' ability to adjust to economic change is worth discussing and studying. But that's quite different from saying that government intervention is required. In fact, a closer look will likely reveal that government policies at the federal, state, and local levels have played a significant role in impeding economic adjustments.
Minimum-wage and occupational licensing regulations have a disproportionate effect on lower-income and lower-skilled workers, making it more difficult for them to enter the labor market. Welfare policy may have a similar impact by reducing the willingness of beneficiaries to look for work once they are unemployed. For instance, economist Scott Winship has shown how Social Security Disability Insurance has created incentives for some potential workers to exit the labor market.
It would be a mistake to use these adjustment issues as a pretext for implementing protectionist policies. Such policies would not help solve these adjustment problems because innovation, not trade, is driving the bulk of the change.
Chinese Subsidies, Reciprocal Tariffs, and the European VAT: The Fallacy of "Fair Trade"
It is common knowledge that China heavily subsidizes some of its favored industries. As the conventional wisdom goes, government support allows the state firms to produce goods at artificially low costs, which translate to artificially low prices. These subsidized foreign producers gain substantial market share in the US market, destroying US jobs. Americans are told that retaliatory measures are necessary to correct this imbalance.
There are two fundamental errors with this argument. First, the benefits from trade come in the form of imports, and exports are the means of obtaining these benefits. Second, most of the cost of these subsidies is borne by the people of China.
As Paul Krugman has written, "all that matters for the gains from trade are the prices at which you trade—it makes absolutely no difference what forces lie behind those prices."
The people on whom the burden of government subsidies fall are the citizens of the government that does the subsidizing. The Chinese subsidies, for instance, are a tragedy for the people of China because they inevitably divert resources away from nonsubsidized areas of the Chinese economy. This means that there are many industries in which China isn't producing—or isn't producing as much—because its government arbitrarily subsidizes other areas of the economy.
The lower prices of Chinese imports made possible by Chinese government subsidies work mainly to the benefit of China's trading partners, including the United States. Contrary to common belief, the real benefits of trade are measured by the value of imports that can be bought per unit of exports—in other words, the exports' purchasing power. The lower the price of imports, the better it is for the importer, even if the price is low only because of a foreign government's subsidies. Furthermore, 63 percent of US imports from China are intermediate goods used for the production of other goods and services. The Chinese government is, in effect, subsidizing a large number of American producers.
It is true that these subsidies artificially lower the prices of imported goods and, thus, hurt some American firms and workers. However, empirically, the fear that this competition will take out a large number of efficient American companies is overblown. In spite of Chinese subsidies for many of its industries, the share of US consumer expenditure that goes to China is around 2 percent and has been constant at that level since 2010. Furthermore, subsidies often make their recipients noninnovative and inefficient.
Subsidies Do Distort Economies and Fuel Protectionist Sentiment
Despite the fact that foreign subsidies have no net negative impact on the domestic economy, there are reasons to be concerned about them. They distort economies and trade flows. They fuel the resurgence of protectionism, when import competition in the form of subsidized goods, like all other forms of competition, results in some workers losing their jobs in the short term. Understandably, these workers care about their losses, and the politicians who represent them do too. People will focus on these short-term losses even though, in the longer term, foreign subsidies result in cheaper inputs for US manufacturing firms, industries that are more productive, a net increase in aggregate jobs, and higher incomes.
As tempting as protectionism may be to politicians, it does not address the problem they are trying to solve with higher duties. Moreover, the United States has policies already in place that are meant to correct for the problem, such as the antidumping and countervailing duties administered by the International Trade Commission. Unfortunately, domestic and foreign producers operating in the United States that seek government-provided protection against foreign competition have abused the system, but the system is in place. Realistically, the only sustainable solution to this issue of foreign subsidies is the intermediation of multinational organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the adoption of multilateral free trade agreements where all parties agree to drop their subsidies. Many countries have successfully used these global rules to address injurious subsidies.
Unilateral Free Trade Benefits Americans More Than Reciprocal Tariffs
The United States has lower duties than most other countries in the world. For instance, the European Union imposes a 10 percent duty on US cars exported to Europe, while the US duty on foreign cars entering America is 2.5 percent. The perceived unfairness of this differential is at the heart of many arguments in favor of increasing US tariffs to match other nations' duties.
As French economist Frédéric Bastiat noted some 170 years ago, however, increasing domestic tariffs in response to foreign tariffs would be akin to blocking up our harbors because other countries have rocky coasts.
Americans Bear the Cost of Tariffs Imposed by the United States
The economic case for free trade is fundamentally unilateral. Americans benefit from lower US tariff rates, independently of what other countries do. That is because tariffs are taxes that raise the cost of living for the residents of the country imposing the tariffs. When the US government imposes trade barriers, Americans bear the cost. Tariffs on imports reduce the amount of goods and services imported into the home country—they are meant to do so. This necessarily reduces the dollars available to foreigners to buy American goods (exports) and services and to invest in the United States (including as purchasers of US government bonds). Consequently, a reduction of imports induced by tariffs means foreigners will reduce the amount of exports they buy from United States, as well as their investments in the US economy.
The recent bout of protectionism in America has provided an opportunity to measure how much Americans have shouldered the costs of the new duties. For instance, economist Pablo D. Fajgelbaum and his coauthors find that American consumers are shouldering the entirety of the $69 billion in added costs imposed by the last year's tariffs on imports from China. This is one of many such academic studies.
This result should not be a surprise. Tariffs are import taxes, the sole purpose of which is to raise the prices of foreign goods to make them so unappealing to US consumers that US consumers instead buy more domestically made goods. Some of the foreign producers of the goods could, in theory, shoulder the full cost of the tariffs if they simply accepted a reduction in their profit margins. However, in reality, importers pass a large portion of the costs of tariffs on to customers—manufacturers and households in the United States—by raising their prices. Data show, for example, that tariffs imposed on global washing-machine imports increased prices by as much as 12 percent between January 2018 (before tariffs took effect) and June 2018. The reduction in demand that followed put downward pressure on the prices, which still remain higher than before the tariffs.
Implementation of a truly reciprocal system of duties would violate the nondiscrimination principle that is at the heart of the global trading system, threatening the system's stability. It would require adjusting individual tariffs upward, product by product, to match the tariffs imposed by other countries, resulting in a substantial tax increase for American consumers.
The global trading system that emerged following World War II was based on successive rounds of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), ultimately resulting in the establishment of the World Trade Organization. A direct result was a worldwide reduction of trade barriers. A bedrock principle of GATT is nondiscriminatory application of duties—or an unconditional "most-favored nation" (MFN) status—among the 164 members of the WTO. As my colleague at the Mercatus Center Daniel Griswold writes,
"Under unconditional MFN, if a nation imposes a 10 percent duty on imported widgets, it must apply the same 10 percent rate to an imported widget regardless of where it is imported from. Under this principle, nations are free to enact different duty rates than other countries on similar products, but each must apply that same rate to all like imports."
Leaving aside countries with which the United States has free trade agreements (meaning that duties are likely close to zero), Griswold looks at the United States' 10 largest trading partners. He finds that under the administration's reciprocity plan, the United States would need to implement more than 25,800 upward duty adjustments. The average weighted duty on imports from those countries would more than double, from 2.1 percent to 5.4 percent, with the higher duties affecting "$583 billion in imports to the United States, raising the duties on 45 percent of imports from the affected trading partners."
Nor can retaliatory tariffs be ruled out. If that happens, the result would be a world with more and higher tariffs across the board, increasing burdens on consumers as well as on workers and firms in industries downstream from these tariffs.
Free trade is extremely easy to implement because all that the home government has to do is eliminate all tariffs, quotas, and subsidies. It doesn't need to wait for foreign governments to stop using trade barriers that impoverish their citizens before it provides relief to its own citizens by lifting all trade barriers.
That's what countries such as Singapore and New Zealand have done, to the benefit of their residents. New Zealand is a better model than China when it comes to trade.
A VAT Is Not a Trade Barrier
There is a belief increasingly encountered among politicians and pundits that a value-added tax acts as a subsidy for exports and as a barrier, or tax, upon imports. This argument was made regularly in 2017, when the House Ways and Means Committee proposed to replace the corporate income tax with a destination-based cash flow tax (also known as a border adjustment tax, or BAT). It continues to be made by the current administration, this time in the context of alleging that other countries engage in unfair trade by using VATs to give their products a competitive advantage over US goods sold in their markets.
The argument goes like this: Most industrial countries have a VAT. The United States doesn't. When a German exporter sends a good to the United States, the German government removes the VAT, and when that German good arrives in the United States it is not subject to a VAT. By contrast (the argument proceeds), when an American exporter exports a good to Germany, the American good is subject to the German VAT upon its sale in Germany. This arrangement is said to be unfair because the foreign country taxes US exports while the United States doesn't tax the foreign country's exports.
This sounds unfair, but it is not. There is some truth to the explanation of how the VAT operates with regard to exports and imports. VATs are destination-based taxes. For instance, it is true that German products exported to the United States are exempt from the German VAT—but so is the US-made car sold in America. This means that the German export is treated exactly the same as US goods sold in the United States. In other words, its treatment is fundamentally fair.
How about US exports in Germany? Well, they get hit by the German VAT in Germany and by the German corporate tax on the manufacturer's German profits, but so too are German goods sold in Germany. In other words, all goods sold in Germany, whether domestic or foreign, are taxed the same way—just as all goods sold in the United States are taxed the same way. What about this arrangement is unfair?
Nearly all economists, from Paul Krugman to Martin Feldstein, have examined the protectionist claim that foreign VATs give an advantage to foreign products sold in export markets without VATs—and, therefore, that foreign VATS artificially boost foreign exports. They have all found that a VAT does not promote exports.
VATs do not give a competitive advantage to exporters from VAT countries. In addition, adopting a VAT in the United States will not boost US exports.
There Is Still a Free Trade Consensus
While removing trade barriers creates some local disruptions and short-term job losses, it always ends up being a net positive for the country that engages in it. Opening a nation to international trade raises wages and increases standards of living by raising the general productivity of workers and increasing both the availability and the quality of consumer goods and services as it reduces their prices.
In recent years, however, a few academics and many political commentators have challenged this "free trade consensus" by arguing that free trade's proponents underestimate the disruptions to the US economy caused by increased import competition. The so-called China shock, the argument goes, starting with China's 2001 admission into the WTO, created a competitive shock of such a scale that jobs weren't just reallocated, they were on net destroyed. Furthermore, it is argued, the increase in capital mobility means that the model of comparative advantage that is the basis of claims of gains from trade falls apart. Both arguments are based on fallacies.
A Challenge to Free Trade Orthodoxy Fails
The "China shock" argument became more potent—and the fears of its proponents were apparently confirmed—after the publication of a series of studies by MIT economist David Autor and his coauthors, David Dorn and Gordon Hanson (collectively known as ADH). In their 2016 paper, ADH examined local labor markets that faced direct competition from Chinese imports over the 1999–2011 period (which includes the Great Recession). They found that 2.4 million net jobs were destroyed.
This is an important contribution to the academic literature because it shows some new difficulties that some workers have had adjusting to big shocks—in this case the depressive effect of import competition from China in certain local labor markets. It is not a remarkable finding because it has long been known that all competition (domestic and international) destroys some jobs in particular sectors or localities, and even a net number of jobs in the short term. What is important, however, for assessing trade—either in general or with China specifically—is import competition's full, long-run effects.
The ADH paper is about the effects of imports on import-competing industries; the results shed no light on the long-term effects of Chinese imports on US exporters, on American consumers, or even on wages in non-import-competing industries. All of these effects matter (as do, of course, the unquestionably large gains millions of Chinese citizens obtain from international trade). A local, short-term analysis tells little about economy-wide (even global) trade shocks. To measure such shocks requires a broader, dynamic analysis over a longer period—which the ADH paper doesn't provide.
A vast literature exists exploring whether trade with China is a source of permanent distress for working-class Americans. It confirms the standard trade story of "discrete, but more concentrated, pains versus larger, but more diffuse (and harder to see), benefits." Moreover, it shows that trade doesn't only benefit the elite—a majority of the benefits of trade flow to workers at the lower end of the income spectrum.
Studies such as ADH's are interesting because they detail the China shock's disproportionate local labor-market effects and Americans' problems adjusting, but they do nothing to call into question the long-standing case for a policy of free trade. Contrary to the way the findings of the ADH papers are typically reported, the authors themselves conclude that imports from China are not the problem. In fact, they admit (when asked) that obstacles to local labor adjustments are the problem. A return to large-scale protectionism will do nothing to address these adjustment issues.
Even When Capital Is Mobile, Comparative Advantage Holds
In 1817, economist David Ricardo demonstrated that, even if a country could produce each unit of all goods and services by using less labor and other resources than are used to produce the same goods and services in other countries, it would still be to that country's advantage to specialize in the production of a handful of outputs—the ones that require comparatively the fewest inputs—and to trade for the rest.
The logical conclusion is that every country that specializes according to its comparative advantage will benefit from trade, because total world output will increase.
While Ricardo's insight is an important component in the case for free trade, it is not the only one. Adam Smith showed that trade generates net economic gains even when specialization is not initiated by comparative advantage. Even if all workers start off with identical productive abilities, they can all gain by specializing. Each specialized worker becomes more skilled at his or her task, and the total output of a group of specialized workers is higher than the total output of the same number of unspecialized workers.
Unfortunately, while Ricardo's theory inflicted much damage on the case for protectionism, it didn't kill the sentiment. Support for protectionism resurfaces on a regular basis, each time proving yet again that, outside the economics profession, very few people fundamentally understand the law of comparative advantage. This realization prompted Paul Krugman to compose a great essay called "Ricardo's Difficult Idea":
"The idea of comparative advantage—with its implication that trade between two nations normally raises the real incomes of both—is, like evolution via natural selection, a concept that seems simple and compelling to those who understand it. Yet anyone who becomes involved in discussions of international trade beyond the narrow circle of academic economists quickly realizes that it must be, in some sense, a very difficult concept indeed."
Among the many misunderstandings about comparative advantage was the one on display in a 2004 New York Times op-ed by Senator Chuck Schumer and economist Paul Craig Roberts. The authors argued that "comparative advantage is undermined if the factors of production can relocate to wherever they are most productive: in today's case, to a relatively few countries with abundant cheap labor. In this situation, there are no longer shared gains—some countries win and others lose." Roberts and Schumer added, "To call America's economic recovery 'jobless' is inaccurate. Lots of new jobs are being created, just not in the United States." Their proclamation was speedily adopted by a coalition of free trade skeptics.
In a more recent defense of protectionism, the comparative advantage model is said to fall apart because "the theory depends upon a number of key assumptions and fails if they are relaxed." Among these allegedly key assumptions is the immobility of capital.
Unfortunately, this is yet another misunderstanding of the law of comparative advantage. Donald Boudreaux wrote in 2004 that Ricardian comparative advantage absolutely holds even with completely mobile factors of production. While mobile capital will change the pattern of comparative advantage, it doesn't eliminate it. In fact, as Boudreaux wrote more recently in an exchange with the protectionist Ian Fletcher, "Unless and until the opportunity cost of producing every good and service in the world is identical for every producer in the world, comparative advantage will exist and provide occasions for mutually productive specialization and trade."
In its latest iteration, the defense of protectionism rests on the idea that comparative advantage does exist when capital is mobile, but that the theory no longer proves free trade is optimal when this is the case. This argument, once again, misconstrues the role that comparative advantage plays in supporting the case for a policy of free trade. That role is, and has always been, to demonstrate the counterintuitive point that a country's ability to produce good steel using fewer resources than are required to produce lumber abroad does not imply that the people of that country should produce steel. The people of said country might still benefit by specializing in the production of lumber and exchanging lumber for imports of steel.
Stated precisely, the case that an understanding of comparative advantage makes for free trade is this: protectionism in the home country will reduce the aggregate economic well-being of the residents of the home country, given the prevailing pattern of comparative advantages across the globe. This case says nothing about the forces that determine comparative advantage or about what is, from the perspective of citizens of the home country, an "ideal" pattern of production and trade.
No serious economist has ever denied that in reality the pattern of comparative advantages can change over time for a multitude of reasons, including innovation and trade. Nor has any serious economist denied the theoretical possibility that an omniscient and apolitical government could use tariffs and subsidies to arrange for the home country's comparative advantages to change in ways that, over time, yield higher real incomes for the people of the home country.
The validity or invalidity of using this theoretical possibility to justify protectionism in the real world has nothing to do with the principle of comparative advantage as such. Even if real-world governments could be trusted to use protectionist interventions in these ways, the resulting case for protectionism would not arise from any failure of comparative advantage to apply in, or to describe, reality.
The theoretical benefits of sophisticated intervention have long been recognized, and so have its real-world problems. Krugman has pointed out that "the gains from intervention are limited by uncertainty about appropriate policies, by entry that dissipates the gains, and by the general equilibrium effects that insure that promoting one sector diverts resources from others." He concludes, "To abandon the free trade principle in pursuit of the gains from sophisticated intervention could therefore open the door to adverse political consequences that would outweigh the potential gains."
Free Trade, Its Benefits, and Its Defense
Trade agreements have unquestionably made the United States and the rest of the world more economically free than they would have been otherwise. This is true even though uncomfortable compromises included in the agreements—likely as a way to render them politically acceptable—make them less than fully free trade.
Imperfect as they are, free trade agreements have been agents of change for the better. They have led most countries to lower their tariffs. Since the end of World War II, the average world tariff rate for major industrial nations dropped from nearly 22 percent to just 2.59 percent today for all countries, an 88 percent reduction. In 1994, before the creation of the World Trade Organization, the average world tariff rate was 8.57 percent. Just since 1994, the average world tariff rate has fallen by 70 percent, from 8.57 percent to 2.59 percent.
As effective as free trade agreements have unquestionably been at lowering trade barriers, the practical support for free trade since the end of World War II, while unquestionably beneficial, suffered from the weakness of being still rooted to some extent in a mercantilist misunderstanding.
That support took for granted the validity of the wrongheaded belief that the ultimate benefit of trade is exports, whereas imports are the unfortunate but necessary price that must be paid in order to export more. The multilateral and bilateral trade treaties "worked" to make trade freer in practice because each government was willing to allow its citizens to import more as the necessary condition for persuading other governments to allow their citizens to do the same. Each government, in short, agreed to lower import barriers only as a means of increasing its country's exports.
While trade negotiations under this misapprehension worked to make trade freer, ultimately a danger lurks because this underlying belief is false. Trade negotiators and all stakeholders (not just economists) need to understand a key reality: the economic benefit of trade is found in the imports the home country receives. Therefore, because other countries' protectionist policies always aim to minimize their imports relative to their exports, the home country is always best served by following a policy of free trade regardless of the policies in place abroad.
The resurgence of protectionist thinking requires a consensus that is more durable—a consensus built on the correct understanding that the ultimate goal of trade is to raise consumers' standard of living, and not to expand the sales of favored domestic producers.
This task is daunting. There are many aspects of free trade that are poorly understood both by the general public and by policymakers. Here are some of the mistaken ideas and faulty concepts that should be challenged in a renewed push for a more durable regime of free trade:
Trade is exchange. Gains from international trade are no different from gains from domestic trade—and, hence, restrictions on international trade are no different from restrictions on domestic commerce.
No nation—be it rich, poor, growing, or stagnant—with whom the United States trades is an economic threat to it. All trade increases US prosperity. While many Americans do feel threatened by China's desire to dominate, this feeling is unwarranted. Americans should welcome China's growth, as it will make them richer. Genuine national security concerns should be met using diplomatic, military, and other tools, not by restricting the freedom of Americans to trade for mutual gain.
The ultimate goal should be a policy of unilateral free trade. While an end to Chinese protectionism is desirable, there is no logic to the United States taxing its citizens in order to try to convince the Chinese to change course and stop taxing themselves.
Protectionism put in place in the name of "fairness" is inherently unfair, not least because proponents of such protectionism always ignore the harm suffered by their fellow citizens who are buyers of higher-priced imports.
Trade is voluntary exchange that enriches both parties (especially the global poor). Protectionism benefits a few government-handpicked winners at the expense of millions of consumers (especially poor ones).
Full story here
Are you the author?
About Veronique De Rugy
Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and a nationally syndicated columnist. Her primary research interests include the U.S. economy, the federal budget, homeland security, taxation, tax competition, and financial privacy. Her popular weekly charts, published by the Mercatus Center, address economic issues ranging from lessons on creating sustainable economic growth to the implications of government tax and fiscal policies. She has testified numerous times in front of Congress on the effects of fiscal stimulus, debt and deficits, and regulation on the economy.
My articlesMy siteMy booksAbout me
Previous Inside Leviathan
Next Investigating Product Exclusion Requests for Section 301 Tariffs: A Tranche Three Update
Mises Institute USA
Mercatus Center
'Certificate of need' laws hinder Michigan health care providers
Wisconsin Occupational Licensing: Easing the Burden for Service Members, Former Service Members, and Military Spouses
Mauldin Letter
EconLog Library
The Trump Regulatory Record
Economics as the Study of Peaceful Human Cooperation and Progress
Taking Bernie and the Radical Left Seriously
Cato Liberty
Agriculture Purchase Commitments Under the U.S.-China Trade Deal: The Case of Beef
The Democrats' Search for a New Foreign Policy
USMCA Races Across the Finish Line, but Uncertainty Remains
Raising Wages via Policy Is Hard or Destructive. It's Time to Focus on Living Costs
When Debating Base Closure, Look at the Data
Jay Taylor Media
Bleeding Hearths Libertarians
Everybody Got to Elevate from the Norm: The Enduring Appeal of Neil Peart and Rush
Mises institute Canada
Who Wants To Be A Jewi er And Other Essays The Institute For Israel And Jewi udies
Defencemen Logan Stanley and Tucker Poolman will get their first flavor
the Caps return household to participate in their very last two games
Ottawa Senatorshave now secured an Eastern Conference berth within the 2017 Stanley Cup playoffs
the Sabres just take on Arizona within the desert
50 years of failed doomsday, eco-pocalyptic predictions; the so-called 'experts' are 0-41 – Publications – AEI
Quotation of the day on the 'High Church of Environmentalism'…… – Publications – AEI
Animated chart of the day: Public school enrollment, staff, and inflation-adjusted cost per pupil, 1970 to 2016 – Publications – AEI
Videos of the day: Index funds, renewable portfolio standards and eco-anxiety – Publications – AEI
Tuesday afternoon links – Publications – AEI
Gold Demand Up 3% in the Third Quarter


Thinking of heading to a Great Wolf Lodge or Kalahari in the upcoming months? Then you want to check out this almost 50% Discount at Great Wolf Lodge and at Kalahari! We have been to the Great Wolf Lodge in Traverse City a bunch of times and always had a bunch of fun. My oldest daughter recently went to Kalahari in Sandusky and was raving about it too!
This is a Groupon deal and when you buy you get a voucher for the Great Wolf Lodge or Kalahari location of your choice. Be sure to check out the details and prices. They vary for each location. Some include lunch as well!
They do all have restrictions on the dates these vouchers must be used by. If the dates work for you though, you can grab an amazing deal!
If you would rather head Kalahari, here are the locations included.


At Hathaway Sprague Law, P.A., we know that a good person can make mistakes. Lapses in judgment, or college pranks gone wrong, can lead to serious criminal charges with serious repercussions. You could be looking at charges of criminal trespass, burglary and theft — crimes that can be prosecuted as a felony in Florida.
There are strategic ways to defend your case if you are accused of these types of charges. Attorney Wayne Sprague is a former assistant public defender and an experienced litigator. He has been a bar member for more than three decades.
We Can Help You. Contact Our Firm Today.
Learn how we can help your burglary or theft case. Schedule your consultation with our Tallahassee criminal law attorney by calling 850-391-2884 (toll-free 888-858-5404), or email us to set up your appointment.


The Nigerian Army on Thursday said that it killed 10 Boko Haram insurgents in a clearance operations in Marte Local Government Area of Borno.
A statement issued in Maiduguri by Col. Timothy Atigha, the spokesman of the 8 Task Force Division, said the troops also recovered bicycles and cows from the insurgents.
He also said that the troops launched two separate attacks against the insurgents at Maza, Danari and Mowo villages of Marte and Monguno Local Government Areas.
Atigha said that the troops recovered 10 bicycles, carts and food items.
He disclosed that the insurgents had resorted to bicycles and carts as means of transportation due to the intensified offensive of the military against the insurgents.
Previous KADUNA FRSC INTERCEPTS HUMAN TRAFFICKER, MINORS RESCUED.
Next GREECE WILDFIRE, SEEKS EU INTERVENTION.


Bollywood Tours – The original and officially registered company. Pioneers of Bollywood Tours in India.
The Slum Tour of Mumbai is an eye-opening opportunity for looking at one of the best kept urban eco-systems, a microcosm of a city within a metropolis.
Marvel at the expertise and unparalleled design acumen in Indian architecture, across the sub-continent. From Temples of the South to the forts in the North.
The cuisine of India is a cuisine of thousands of years of cultural and geo-political influence. Come and have a tour of what our great nation has to offer!
The history of India is dated from thousands of years B.C. Look at events that shaped India's current culture with our guided heritage tours.
Go behind the scenes at the Film capital of Asia, in Mumbai with our guided Bollywood Tours. See close-up how brilliant films and TV series are made!
Brilliant assortment of exciting tours in Mumbai and around India are curated by our expert staff.
Discover Mumbai & India through the eyes of the Locals!
Take a look at Mumbai, Bollywood & Indian Heritage through the pedestal of the locals. Our tours are authentically made to show what the run-of-the-mill agencies skip over!
We are the leading agency handling Mumbai and Bollywood Tours, having started the genre back in 2003.
Discover Mumbai and India like never before, personalized tours. Just look at our top reviews on TripAdvisor!
Our tours are designed to be enjoyed with the whole family! So come one, come all! Read About Us!
Had a great time. Sang in a studio, went behind the scenes and saw a famous indian actor. Our tour guide was also very sweet.
Thank you Rahul for a great tour! Very informative and knowledgeable in a relaxed manner. Thoughtful and respectful of local community.
First of all I made reservations for the WRONG month. I tried to change it and Bollywood IMMEDIATELY fixed it! SUNIL was a GREAT guide! Bollywood was very flexible!
We did this slum tour. It was a very inspirational and highly recommended tour with our guide Rahul. It is a real eye opener.
Our experience with Bollywood tours was wonderful. We had so much fun on the movie sets and the movie stars were friendly. Thank you Bollywood tours.
All the latest news, resources and expert opinions from us in one place.
Whether you want inspiration and guidance in planning your next adventure or need help with an existing booking, feel free to get in touch.


It affects pretty much everyone sometimes. Realize that the people you respect are in the same boat you are.
Talk about it directly, with coworkers or others you trust.
If you have time, do a small side project for practice in an area you're anxious about.
Realize that a lot of the stuff you're anxious about is probably small or downright silly… Yes, some people talk about vim a lot. But you can edit text now, right? You don't have to care about vim. And acronyms and fancy names often describe really simple, non-intimidating things.
Accept you had some part in your own success, and keep going; you're already doing it.
Frank: The emperor isn't wearing any clothes!
Frank: This emperor. I'm a fake. My work's fake. I can't go on like this—the critics' darling—knowing that it's all a fake.
Julia: Try to hold on just one more time.
Frank: I've had fourteen hits in a row Off-Broadway and thirty-seven Obies. I want a flop. I need a flop. Somebody, tell me, please: when is it my turn? I'm no good. You've got to believe me. I'm no good.


text:
<!-- Generated by //third_party/blink/web_tests/bluetooth/generate.py -->
<!DOCTYPE html>
<script src="/resources/testharness.js"></script>
<script src="/resources/testharnessreport.js"></script>
<script src="/resources/testdriver.js"></script>
<script src="/resources/testdriver-vendor.js"></script>
<script src="/bluetooth/resources/bluetooth-test.js"></script>
<script src="/bluetooth/resources/bluetooth-fake-devices.js"></script>
<script src="/common/gc.js"></script>
<script>
'use strict';
const test_desc = 'disconnect() called before writeValue. ' +
    'Reject with NetworkError.';
const value = new Uint8Array([1]);
let device, characteristic, fake_peripheral;

function createDOMException(func) {
  return new DOMException(
      `Failed to execute '${func}' on 'BluetoothRemoteGATTCharacteristic': ` +
      `GATT Server is disconnected. Cannot perform GATT operations. ` +
      `(Re)connect first with \`device.gatt.connect\`.`,
      'NetworkError');
}

bluetooth_test(() => getMeasurementIntervalCharacteristic()
    .then(_ => ({device, characteristic, fake_peripheral} = _))
    .then(() => {
      device.gatt.disconnect();
      return assert_promise_rejects_with_message(
        characteristic.writeValue(value),
        createDOMException('writeValue'));
    }),
    test_desc);

</script>

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Poland's Elblag canal is a gravity-defying waterway like none other, writes AFP's Mary Sibierski. Located in what was once East Prussia, it offers a boat cruise that is part San Francisco cable car ride through idyllic countryside.
"It's unlike any other canal cruise in the world. Parts are in the water but on other parts the entire boat travels uphill on dry land between canals on wide-gauge railway carriages," said Pawel Zastepowski, 38, the skipper of a canal boat who has spent 15 years cruising the waterway.
"It's really quite incredible - not only is it 148-years-old but the hauling system is entirely powered by water," he said.
Depending on the point of departure, boats are hauled nearly 100 meters (109 yards) up or downhill - about the height of a 30-storey building - over a near 10-kilometre (6.2-mile) incline using an ingenious system of hydro-powered cable tracks on five slipways, like steps between canals.
The Oberlandischer Kanal, as it is called, was built by German engineer Georg Jakob Steenke between 1845-1860 on orders from then King of Prussia, Friedrich Wilhelm IV, and was used to transport goods, mostly wood. "It's the only hydro-powered technology of its kind in the world," Zastepowski said with more than a hint of pride.
Water falls onto water wheels - like the kind in old mills - to power the system of cables that haul vessels perched atop special carriages along the tracks. The mechanism has required only minor repairs since 1860, the skipper said.
While the network's up-and-down section runs for 9.23 kilometers, the entire cruise covers 82 kilometers, winding along the canal and a string of small lakes between the northern cities of Elblag and Ostroda. The canal can also accommodate sailboats and small yachts, many of which enter the lush waterway from nearby holiday spots like lake Jeziorak.
The experience is both an engineering and a natural marvel. Flocks of storks, herons and eye-catching European Kingfishers with electric blue wings and bright orange bellies are among dozens of bird species populating the waterway. Yellow and white water lilies dot the waterway, and passengers are lulled by the sound of wind rustling in lush thickets of reeds.
"It's just peace and quiet, marshlands, lakes and a nature reserve for water fowl," said the skipper. "We have more than 200 species, including white-tailed eagles - there are about 20 here now."
He said guests come "from all over Europe and the world really - Germany, Holland, Belgium, Danes, Japanese, Koreans and even Saudis."
Most of the foreign tourists are German, however, often with family roots in the surrounding lake districts of Warmia and Mazurian. Prior to World War II, this picturesque northeastern corner of Poland was East Prussia, or Ostpreussen, an outpost of Germany where ethnic Germans comprised more than 80 percent of the population.
"It's a present for my mum because her mother came from this area," Hamburg lawyer Caroline Moeschel, 35, told AFP at a lodge in Galkowo, one of the stops on a sentimental road trip with her 72-year-old mother Renate. "For us it's something the grandparents told us about."
Long a holiday spot, the late pope John Paul II, an avid outdoorsman, kayaked along the area's many rivers and marshland waterways - sometimes likened to the Louisiana Bayou - while still a priest in his native Poland.
Since the collapse of communism in 1989, yachting on nearby lakes, including Poland's largest, Sniardwy, has gained in popularity for Poles and foreigners. But a sinister reminder of the past sits in what is now the Polish hamlet of Gierloz, where Adolf Hitler built his Wolfsschanze, or Wolf's Lair, a massive concrete bunker he used as the command centre on the eastern front against the Soviet Union in World War II.
The site went down in history July 20, 1944 when the German colonel Claus von Stauffenberg staged a failed assassination attempt against the Nazi dictator. A film based on the story featuring Hollywood superstar Tom Cruise as Stauffenberg is currently in production.


CVS Password and Settings Storage Location?
The reason is I'd like to know how they work with multiple users. If they were in the CCS file they would have to be changed every time a different user check out the code.


Lisa Ladew is a published author of romance fiction novels.
Lisa Ladew is the creator and the author of the Edge of the Heat fictional series of novels. The series became available to readers for the first time in 2014. This is when the debut novel for which the series was named for came out. The sequel was published shortly after and there have since been several more books in this sizzling romance saga, so check it out if you are looking for something new in the romance department.
Edge of the Heat is the first book to come out in the series by the same name. In this debut story, the main character of Emma Hill gets introduced to readers for the first time.
Emma Hill likes her job working as a firefighter and a paramedic. It is definitely not a career choice that just anyone could handle. The demands of working this job take a lot out of you. You must not only go through a ton of training and then certification but get hired, and that is when the real work begins. Draining on a physical and emotional level due to the nature of the job, that never stopped Emma from working toward her dream job.
She never thought that doing this type of work would actually put her in the way of harm, though. That's exactly what ends up happening and she goes through a near-death experience. As a result, the world that she lives in is turned completely upside down, and things are never going to be the same.
Emma is having a vision that haunts her. It concerns a man that she thinks could be someone that she has to find, or he could even be her soulmate. She's not sure what the point or purpose is of the dreams. They could be happening for any reason.
Maybe she's just having a weird series of recurring dreams. Perhaps she is becoming mentally unbalanced. Maybe God's calling out to her, or she has a zinc deficiency. Or she and this person are connected. Honestly, Emma has no idea.
She wants to do what she can in order to track down this man, but has no idea what it's going to take. It would certainly require a huge amount of courage from her to even attempt it. The simple fact is that the fear that she is feeling is getting in the way of attempting to find him.
There's also the matter of holding onto her job and her daily demands. But she's going through a lot and doesn't quite know how to handle it all. Her ex husband is in the process of maniacally attempting to win her back and get into a relationship again. She doesn't want anything to do with him and definitely does not feel safe. There is no way of telling what her former spouse might do as he's totally unpredictable.
She's trying to figure out how to live her life and stay out of his way, but knows that can't work forever. Emma doesn't want to live a life that is filled with abuse and silent desperation. She has no idea what to do, though. Her husband is a bad cop that just doesn't have the same limits that normal people do.
The stakes have never been higher as Emma is doing everything that she can to try and handle the situation. She feels overwhelmed and doesn't think that she is ever going to be able to get this real life nightmare to end. She never counted on her knight in shining armor riding in to help her.
Craig Masterson was the firefighter that saved Emma's life. Now he thinks that he might be more interested in this beautiful woman than he would have anticipated. In fact, he's pretty sure that he is falling head over heels in love. He never anticipated that she'd have a former lover stalking her and that this whole situation would be so complicated.
Choosing to pursue his feelings about Emma may result in his own involvement. He has no idea what the results of this would be and is concerned about how another guy in the picture might affect her crazy ex-husband. Still, he feels too strongly about this girl to let her go.
Will he be able to follow true love and stay alive too? It's anybody's guess, particularly with the ex in the picture. Pick up the first book in this series by Lisa Ladew to find out what happens in the end by reading to the last page to catch every dramatic bit of this possible love story.
If you loved the first book in the Edge of the Heat series, then you will definitely have an interest in looking into the sequel! The second book is even more engaging than the first, with tons of action and all of the romance that the reader can handle.
Emma is back and she's in the middle of a dramatic situation still. She wants to be able to run away. No matter what she does, she feels like she just isn't able to hide from what's going on. She has good reason to think this way as her ex is still alive and committed to making her life horrible.
Her former husband takes pleasure in making her afraid and is taunting her nonstop. She's been worried and frayed. When an attack strikes that only could have been planned by her husband, she finds out that the person that she loves is gone.
This is the worst thing that could have ever happened. She is determined to track him down, but just how much boldness will that take? If she refuses to try, she could lose the man that she loves forever. She doesn't know for sure if her former spouse is behind it, but it seems the most likely answer.
Can she find the man she cares about and rescue him? Or will her ex have the last laugh? Pick up the second book in this series by Lisa Ladew to find out!


text:
Feature Film Production Class
Filmmaking Students In On All The "Action" of Summer Movie Project
Assistant professor David Mallin (right) and visiting director Vince DeGeorge (far left) instruct ODU students on the set of their workshop film "18 Mornings."
The dialogue among the Old Dominion film students on the Goode Theatre soundstage, set of the feature "18 Mornings," was clipped and to the point:
"Scene 10 Alpha, Take 1!" called Alina Robertson, the second assistant camera.
"Roll camera!" answered A.J. Fields, the first assistant director.
"Rolling!" said first assistant camera Victor Collins.
"Marker!" Robertson announced, the crack of her clapperboard splitting the air.
Then, after a long pause to be sure all was ready, came the call from guest director Vince DeGeorge of the University of Cincinnati:
"Action!"
Another scene between the film's two characters - played by paid professional actors Dietrich Teschner and Jaclyn Marry, who wrote the script - was underway.
"The students are doing everything," said assistant professor David Mallin, who conceived the movie for his "Feature Film Production" summer class and serves as the cinematographer.
"This is a six-credit, all-in project," he said. "And it's a learning environment. The students can make mistakes here that in the real world people wouldn't tolerate."
The full-length feature is a "workshop" project for the class' 11 students. It was given birth after Mallin met Marry, an actress from Los Angeles, at the Cannes Film Festival.
Mallin said he was looking for a condensed, one-set script to produce with DeGeorge; they did a short film a few years ago when Mallin taught at Virginia Tech and DeGeorge was a graduate student.
"I started telling Jaclyn how much I'd love to do something with one room, two people, a very limited context," Mallin said. "She said, 'You're not going to believe this, but I'm here trying to pitch this script that's two characters and one room.' "
Mallin and DeGeorge enlisted another friend, Kathleen Moriarity, a professional production designer, to oversee the students' build-out of the set, which is an apartment bedroom. It's there that the characters "Jackson" and "Sofia" are seen one morning a month over 18 months as their relationship unfolds.
"They are being extremely thorough in teaching us to be thorough," said Fields, who aspires to be a director and asked to be DeGeorge's first assistant. "This is right in the pocket for me. They taught us well in class, but being here, dealing with the crew and actually doing the shots is a million times better."
As DeGeorge and Mallin drew up those shots, Fields jotted their chronology into a notebook. Other students held the boom microphone over scenes, operated the camera, adjusted props on the set, and took iPhone screenshots of DeGeorge's monitor to assure scenery and wardrobe continuity from scene to scene.
That professionalism is also what impressed senior Sergio Lorenzana, a camera operator and assistant production designer for the film that will wrap up 15 days of filming June 22.
"With our student films, the actors are just our friends, and the script is something we wrote overnight," Lorenzana said. "There was a lot of pre-production time spent with this. It took two weeks to build the set. This is a legitimate feature."
Mallin said he's not sure what will become of the final product once DeGeorge finishes the editing. Originally a workshop product not intended for public viewing, the film is turning out so well Mallin said he and DeGeorge are reconsidering.
At the least Marry will have a produced script. She and Teschner will have footage and Internet Movie Data Base entries for their resumes. And the Old Dominion students will have top-quality experiences to draw upon when they have the chance to bring their own artistic ideas to life.
"This is a real collaborative environment," said Steven Crocker, the sound man. "Vince hears everybody out, and even if you have a bad idea, he'll walk you through why it's not a good idea and show you how to make it better."
DeGeorge said the opportunity for open input is why the workshop approach resonates so well.
"The students can learn all the technical things about how to make a movie," he said. "But you need to be on the set and seeing it happen, because every set and every relationship is different."
In the case of "18 Mornings,'' DeGeorge said what he has seen has been a pleasant surprise.
"The goal was to just workshop this script and see what we could get done, but it's going so well we recalibrated our schedule to get the whole thing shot," DeGeorge said. "We've gotten great work done."

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


If you're having problems with a Mma product or service and want to make a complaint then use CustomerCare.org to take your complaint to a Director for rapid response. Complete our easy form on the homepage to send your complaint straight to a decision-maker at Mma and get an answer.
CustomerCare.org takes your complaint to a Director at Mma for action then monitors it through an advanced tracking system, sending regular reminders and making calls to ensure the issue is not forgotten. When there's still no response from Mma, your issue is escalated to the CEO and tracked, keeping you informed at all times. If there's no reply from the Mma CEO, our experienced monitoring team immediately take over, making calls and/or writing letters to the Mma executive office to find out why there has been no response to your Mma complaints. Once they've established the problem, the team resubmits the case to Mma for you and continues monitoring it.
The team are persistent and determined to ensure your Mma complaints get resolved.
CustomerCare.org is an independent service that will handle your Mma complaints for you. We personally create high-level dialogues with people at Mma who can understand your problem and promptly authorize suitable action to provide satisfaction.


text:
namespace Google.Cloud.Dlp.V2.Snippets
{
    // [START dlp_v2_generated_DlpService_CreateDlpJob_sync_flattened1_resourceNames2]
    using Google.Api.Gax.ResourceNames;
    using Google.Cloud.Dlp.V2;

    public sealed partial class GeneratedDlpServiceClientSnippets
    {
        /// <summary>Snippet for CreateDlpJob</summary>
        /// <remarks>
        /// This snippet has been automatically generated and should be regarded as a code template only.
        /// It will require modifications to work:
        /// - It may require correct/in-range values for request initialization.
        /// - It may require specifying regional endpoints when creating the service client as shown in
        ///   https://cloud.google.com/dotnet/docs/reference/help/client-configuration#endpoint.
        /// </remarks>
        public void CreateDlpJob1ResourceNames2()
        {
            // Create client
            DlpServiceClient dlpServiceClient = DlpServiceClient.Create();
            // Initialize request argument(s)
            LocationName parent = LocationName.FromProjectLocation("[PROJECT]", "[LOCATION]");
            InspectJobConfig inspectJob = new InspectJobConfig();
            // Make the request
            DlpJob response = dlpServiceClient.CreateDlpJob(parent, inspectJob);
        }
    }
    // [END dlp_v2_generated_DlpService_CreateDlpJob_sync_flattened1_resourceNames2]
}


Theme boots are ideal for the sporty biker looking for the principal technical characteristics and look of a racing boot in low-top footwear. CE certified, they are equipped with interchangeable front sliders and have reinforced ankles and toes. The outer upper is made of light and durable microfiber while the inner part in chamois increases grip. The fit is facilitated by an internal zip, while a practical closure system on the instep allows you to adjust the volume. The outsole provides an excellent grip on the footpegs and is resistant to wear and to hydrocarbons.


text:
La route nationale 451 ou RN 451 était une route nationale française reliant Villemandeur à Bonnée, dans le département du Loiret. Après les déclassements de 1972, elle est devenue RD 961.

De Villemandeur à Bonnée (D 961)
 Villemandeur (km 0)
 Lombreuil (km 8)
 Thimory (km 11)
 Lorris (km 19)
 Les Bordes (km 30)
 Bonnée (km 33)

Voir aussi
Voir le tracé de la RN 451 sur Google Maps

451

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Q: Pass a function as parameter in jQuery? I would like to pass to a jQuery function a regular function, instead of the usual anonymous function, but I'm not sure how such a thing could be done.
Instead of this:
function setVersion(feature) {
      $.post("some.php", { abc:"abc" },
      function(data){
         // do something here
      }, "json");
}

I would like to do this:
function foo(data){
   // do something here
}

function setVersion(feature) {
      $.post("some.php", { abc:"abc" }, foo, "json");
}

Thank you.

A: Should run just fine.
I believe jQuery is actually meant to use the regular function, called by name.  Using the anonymous function is simply a replacement for a named function that would otherwise be passed.

A: Yeah, already works. But you want it probably look like this:
function setVersion(feature, myFunction) {
      $.post("some.php", { abc:"abc" }, myFunction, "json");
}
setVersion(blah, foo);

A: Yes, that is exactly how you do it.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Your little cutie birthday boy will look so adorable in his Monkey Green Gingham Top for his birthday party celebration! This set is pictured with a number 1, You may personalize his top by having any Age, Initial or Name added.
Also, you may change out the colors to go with your party theme colors, if you liked.
His Top has a Green Outline around the age and Green Gingham applique, with his name in Brown.
His Monkey Shirt will arrive within 1 week with standard shipping.
op Sizing: See Size Chart below. If you have any questions regarding the lengths please feel free to email us.