Quotulatiousness

March 2, 2011

Why “Buy American” or “Buy Canadian” campaigns are bad economics

Filed under: Economics, History, Liberty, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:26

Daniel Ikenson takes ABC to task for their misleading propaganda against international trade:

Back in the “golden age” of 1960, when imports were oddities to marvel over in a disdainful way, the per-capita U.S. income was $2,914. In 2009, with imports ubiquitous, per-capita income was $46,411. (Economic Report of the President, 2010, Tables B-1 and B-34). In real, inflation-adjusted terms, even with a U.S. population increase from 181 million to 307 million, per-capita incomes in 2009 were almost triple what they were in 1960 ($42,277 vs. $15,669 in 2005 dollars — ERP, 2010, Tables B-2 and B-34). Oh, if only we could replicate the relative poverty, the limited consumer choices, the inefficient production processes, the massive trade barriers that compelled Americans to buy American, and the uneconomic work rules and wages commanded by once-powerful private sector labor unions. In 1960, before real economic liberalization spawned cultural and social liberalization, Diane Sawyer would never have dreamed of being a network news anchor, if she even dared to entertain the concept of working outside of the home. How can she pine for such an era?

It’s frustrating that so much research refuting the myth of manufacturing decline and supporting the conclusion that U.S. manufacturing is thriving — and is in fact leading the world in terms of value of output — is simply neglected by a media that is more committed to scaring than informing. Today Americans are less likely to find in their homes products manufactured in the United States because U.S. manufacturers have moved on to producing higher value products. American manufacturing isn’t focused on products that consumers find in retail stores, like furniture, hand tools, sporting goods, flatware, draperies, carpeting and clothes. American factories produce more value than any other country’s factories by focusing on producing the highest value products: pharmaceuticals, chemicals, airplanes, sophisticated componentry, technical textiles, and other items often sold directly to other businesses.

I and others have been making these points for several years, as U.S. manufacturing continues to thrive in every metric . . . except employment. Manufacturing employment peaked in 1979 and has been on a downward trajectory ever since. But that is the point that eludes ABC and everyone else who thinks U.S. manufacturing’s best days are in the past. Making more with less is the goal! That’s how an economy grows! The political imperative of “putting people back to work” regardless of the economic value of that work — remember the so-called stimulus? — spits in the face of economics. The fact that Americans are unemployed speaks to a mismatch of skills demanded and skills available, as well as to a business and regulatory environment that dissuades investment and hiring.

NFL owners lose key legal battle with players’ union

Filed under: Football, Law, Media — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:16

The looming lockout of NFL players may not be looming quite as large, due to a legal outcome in a Minnesota District Court:

In his ruling, Doty said the NFL breached its union contract by accepting below-established market contracts for their TV deals in 2011 that not only produced less revenue to share with players, but also protected the owners by guaranteeing the payment whether a lockout potentially canceled the season entirely.

In his 28-page opinion, Doty said the record showed the NFL entered contract negotiations with the TV networks with the expressed idea that, if there was no 2011 season, the owners would still get paid while the players would not, creating an imbalance used to “advance its own interests and harm the players.”

Doty overruled Burbank’s decision and ordered another hearing to determine if the owners are liable to paying damages to the NFLPA, which, given the current cost split, would give the players half of the $150 million each team would receive from the TV deal, or to block the owners from collecting any of the TV money without a product on the field. The NFLPA is asking Doty to issue an injunction to put the TV money in escrow until a new labor agreement is worked out.

This money might well have been a useful war-chest for the NFL owners to sit out a long work stoppage (whether a strike by the players’ union or a lockout), but thanks to the decision by David Doty they won’t have that money available until after some agreement is reached.

QotD: Humour

Filed under: Britain, Europe, Germany, History, Humour, Quotations, WW2 — Nicholas @ 12:02

A German I know will on occasion tell you his father died in the concentration camps. He waits for the concerned and properly sympathetic faces and then adds that he got drunk and fell out of a watchtower. Europeans find that boorish, faintly crass and rather tasteless; the English love it. It’s a proper joke, and a German doing it is double bubble. The surprise is that neither the Europeans or the English realize that it’s not a joke at all, his father really did fall out of a watch tower and it’s poignant and sad because his son never knew him, never met his dad.

A.A. Gill, The Angry Island: Hunting the English, p. 112.

Small scale demonstration of earthquake liquifaction

Filed under: Science — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 07:45

H/T to BoingBoing.

Love it or hate it: Marmite and social media

Filed under: Britain, Food, Randomness — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 00:06

Oddly enough, I just picked up a jar of Marmite recently, not having tasted the stuff for literally decades. I love the stuff, but I can understand why others might hate it:

When it comes to evoking passionate debate British brand Marmite has proven controversy can help build buzz and sales. This brown savory spread made from yeast extract has an incredibly distinctive flavor. 15 years ago Marmite’s own “Love It or Hate It” campaign evolved out of a difference of tastes among the creative team at DDB London. One loved the brown, savory spread and one hated it. The campaign’s longevity and fame reflects the fact that even in its country of origin, the brand’s strong taste is “challenging.” (Few Americans can even stand the idea of Marmite and it is questionable whether many Brits would if they had not been introduced to the taste as children.)

[. . .]

The “Love it or Hate It” campaign brought to an end five years of stagnating sales and a weakening brand and led to sustained, penetration-led growth of around 5% each year for the next five years.

When sales once again started to slow in 2002 the campaign idea proved flexible enough to help revive the brand’s fortunes once again. The campaign was enlisted to introduce a new, “squeezy” container and extend usage to sandwiches. Messing with a much loved brand is never easy, but astute brand management involved ardent fans with the relaunch and enlisted another British icon, Paddington Bear, to bring the brand back to growth. In 2010, the brand spoofed the British elections. Love and Hate parties battled it out to either build a shrine to the brand or rename it “Tarmite.”

The fact that people are so passionate about the brand (for or against) means that Marmite’s “Love It or Hate It” campaign is a natural fit with social media. According to Contagious Magazine, some 200,000 fans were already on Facebook as self-declared Marmite lovers long before the official page was launched in 2008.Today the brand has a fully fledged social media presence with over 500,000 people liking the brand and 182,000 liking The Marmite Hate Party (Dedicated to Stop the Spread of Marmite by reducing, and ultimately terminating, its production and consumption).

Damn. Now I’ve gone and made myself hungry . . .

Powered by WordPress