Sunday, November 3, 2013

GMU Undergraduate Contribution by James Anderson :

Free Trade, the Sugar Industry, and American Obesity is an article written by Undergraduate Economics student James Anderson, discussing intervention on the sugar industry that ultimately results in American Obesity.

Clip :

"With the intention of protecting American jobs and decreasing competition on domestic industries, protectionist policies took large effect under the Navigation Act. Such policies have unintentionally decreased innovation and increased prices on American consumers. How? The effects of these policies have stifled competition..."

Read James Anderson's full article :
 under "GMU Undergraduate Contributions" Tab (Above).

About James Anderson:
19 year old, James Anderson, is pursuing a BS in Economics at George Mason University.

1 comment:

Gary Witzack said...

It is the responsibility of Congress "to Coin Money, Regulate the Value thereof, and of Foreign Coin." -- Article 1, Section 8, US Constitution.

Undervalued foreign currencies have devastated our industrial manufacturing base over the last 40 years.

Although the U.S. population has continued to rise since 1971, when the Brenton Woods international agreement broke down, the total U.S. manufacturing employment has declined dramatically, reflecting the devastating effect that undervalued foreign currencies and unrestricted trade have had on the United States industrial manufacturing base.

Government reports show a rise in service jobs, but a continued steady drop in manufacturing employment. Even our food supply is now being outsourced to low-wage countries.

Because of the loss of millions of good-paying manufacturing jobs, government revenues have not kept pace with government expenditures, causing multi-decade budget problems. But incurring more debt, to pay an ever increasing national debt, is obviously unsustainable.

Some argue that the solution to raise taxes, but that can drive even more jobs overseas.

Others insist that the solution is to reduce spending, but that can effect family support payments.

I firmly believe that the best solution is to....

(1) raise more income tax revenue

(2) lower support payment outlays

(3) and substantially reducing deficits

....all by bringing millions of manufacturing jobs back to the United States.

Each returning job has a double net effect; higher income to the government and reduced outlays to the individual. When people have jobs, they pay taxes and they don't require supplemental government income payments or other miscellaneous benefits.

Of course, those manufacturing jobs will not return until we provide the environment required for job growth....

(1) equitable corporate taxes, as compared to foreign corporate taxes.

(2) a regulatory environment that does not prohibit industrial development.

(3) and, most important --- a foreign currency exchange rate that ensures an equitable exchange of labor, ensuring that the minimum wage rate in competing countries is roughly equal to the minimum rate rate in the United States.

It is the responsibility of Congress "to Coin Money, Regulate the Value thereof, and of Foreign Coin." It is impossible to compete with other nations whose currency is so undervalued when compared to ours, that their minimum wage is only 15 to 50 cents an hour, while our minimum wage is $7.25. Jobs automatically migrate to the lower-wage lower-cost of production countries.

We cannot have a strong vibrant expanding economy, if our manufacturing base is destroyed by "unfair" trade. U.S. workers can compete with any one in the world, if our currencies our equivalent, thus making our cost of labor competitive on the world market.

Until we provide the environment that is required to nurture job growth, we will continue on this unsustainable path toward debt that we cannot service, and benefits that we cannot afford to pay. Only the income provided by more jobs will solve these seemingly intractable problems.

Gary Witzack, Beloit, Wisconsin