![]() |
|
FEATURE ARTICLE |
|
|
|
About Those US Jobs
David Galland Date: 01-31-2012 Subject: Casey Research Articles US politicians make a great show of concerning themselves with the
level of unemployment. And so they bluster about the need for this new
program or that new program â€" in fact, about any new idea except for the
one that will actually be effective. Namely, stop the meddling. Recently
there have been some interesting developments that merely confirm the
government's intentions are to continue doing exactly the opposite of
what they should be doing. For starters, we had the news that
President Obama announced his administration was going to block the
Keystone XL pipeline, blaming the decision on the Republicans and
foisting responsibility for the call onto the back of Hillary Clinton's
State Department. The story has received quite a bit of coverage, so I won't repeat it here. However, I will mention a Reuters column by John Kemp, titled Keystone symbolizes what is wrong with US policy. As he points out, the initial permit application for Keystone XL was
filed in 2008 â€" and yet here we are, going on four years later, and the
president is complaining about the "rushed and arbitrary deadline"
imposed by the Republicans as part of the latest round of budget
theatrics. The actual fact of the matter is that the United States
is becoming increasingly unfriendly toward businesses that actually
produce anything tangible, despite our politicians constantly carping
about the evil capitalists sending American jobs overseas. On that front, there's a great series that Bloomberg has just kicked off, titled America's Dirty War Against Manufacturing, on why US manufacturing is expatriating itself. Here's a relevant quote: Those
industries left the U.S. in search not of cheaper workers, but of more
supportive governments. If the U.S. lost manufacturing due to high wages
(or unions, labor laws, regulation â€" the other commonly cited
villains), how do you explain the manufacturing success of Germany and
Japan? Germany, the world's pre-eminent high-end manufacturing economy,
has higher wages, stronger unions and stricter labor laws than the U.S.
Japan, too, is a high-wage competitor, yet Toyota Motor Corp. still
makes 60 percent of its vehicles there. General Motors Co. makes only
about 30 percent in North America. So if wages aren't to blame, what is? Policy. But is US government policy really hostile to manufacturing? Sadly, yes. While
the government may make life hard for the manufacturing sector, it
positively detests the extractive industries â€" the Keystone XL pipeline
being just one of many recent examples. This week, for instance, the
outlook for new mineral exploration and mining in the geological
treasure-chest state of Nevada was cast into doubt by new regulations related to protecting the habitat of the sage grouse. I
have nothing against the sage grouse personally, or any other bird, for
that matter. I am simply trying to make the point that if you are
trying to attract capital investment, create jobs and reduce dependence
on foreign producers of the tangibles our economy relies on, surprising
businesses with ever more regulations is not helpful. But the story my friend Porter Stansberry sent me takes the cake â€" it is a proposal to establish a "Reasonable Profits Board" whose sole purpose will be to control how much companies in the oil and gas business will be able to earn going forward. A relevant quote from the article: The
Democrats, worried about higher gas prices, want to set up a board that
would apply a "windfall profit tax" as high as 100 percent on the sale
of oil and gas, according to their legislation. The bill provides no
specific guidance for how the board would determine what constitutes a
reasonable profit. The Gas Price Spike Act, H.R. 3784,
would apply a windfall tax on the sale of oil and gas that ranges from
50 percent to 100 percent on all surplus earnings exceeding "a
reasonable profit." It would set up a Reasonable Profits Board made up
of three presidential nominees that will serve three-year terms. Unlike
other bills setting up advisory boards, the Reasonable Profits Board
would not be made up of any nominees from Congress. The
bill would also seem to exclude industry representatives from the
board, as it says members "shall have no financial interests in any of
the businesses for which reasonable profits are determined by the
Board." Dan Ferris, the editor of Stansberry's Extreme Value newsletter, was on the same email string and on reading the article
wrote back the following note, which I thought worth sharing. So... just to recap, then... Selling
gasoline is a crap, low (if any) margin business. If you don't attach a
convenience store to it, you make nothing. Refining gasoline has a
margin between something like 1% and negative infinity, except every now
and then when it almost looks like it's not another crappy business. And
Congress says they make too much money. If they could guarantee a
reasonable profit, they'd be subsidizing it, not taxing it. People
who lend out your deposits (ten times over) and forbid Walmart from
entering their business because Walmart's model would only benefit
customers, not cronies, aren't making too much money. People who get money from the government to keep the price of sugar double the global price aren't making too much money. People
who get money from government to grow corn so they can do the most
expensive possible thing with it â€" turn it into ethanol â€" aren't making
too much money. Al Gore's carbon credit trading operation isn't making too much money. College
professors who don't teach, who drink fine wine, live in Tudor
McMansions and drive Volvos while writing papers on the oppression of
women in the workforce aren't making too much money. But people
who sell gasoline... one of the skinniest margins on Earth... a product
without which life as we know it comes to a grinding halt... they're
making too much money. This is what you get when you vote, people
trying to make good sound bites for ignoramuses who vote, as if the
political process had all the depth and meaning of a Disney movie
trailer. "Coming soon: Hope, Change and Reasonable Profits!" And, finally, to put this all in perspective, the following is a quote that Reason magazine ran from Eric Schmidt of Google. Q:
You recently testified before Congress in an antitrust hearing about
Google. What are your reflections on the experience? Were the leaders
there asking the right questions? Eric Schmidt: So we get
hauled in front of the Congress for developing a product that's free,
that serves a billion people. Okay? I mean, I don't know how to say it
any clearer. I mean, it's fine. It's their job. But it's not like we
raised prices. We could lower prices from free to… lower than free? You
see what I'm saying? I've said it before, I'll say it again here â€" if you want to fix the economy, stop government meddling! [Persistently high unemployment is just one thread in the American debt crisis tapestry. Yet there are ways you can protect yourself â€" and even profit â€" during these troubling times.] |