Saturday, March 05, 2005


Kudlow on the booming U.S. economy: "Private-sector domestic output -- what Economics 101 students might remember as consumption plus investment (or C+I) -- came in at an outsized 5.5 percent growth. So what did the New York Times do with this upbeat economic story? It buried it. Rather than place the news on the front page of the business section, the Times editors shoved it on page B4. Instead of carrying a senior reporter's byline, the copy came from Reuters News Service.... The Bush-bashing New York Times just won't get honest about America's economic health and the merits of the Bush policies that have led to such strong economic performance. Even more, the Paul Krugman-influenced Times refuses to concede the economic growth power of lower marginal tax-rate incentives. These have got to be angst-filled days over at the Times. It's turning out that Bush has been just as right on the economy as he has been on the spread of freedom and democracy in the Middle East."

Truth trumps outsourcing hysteria: "'Show us the jobs!' chanted union workers at an AFL-CIO rally protesting outsourcing. They were angry that 'their' jobs were going overseas. So let's go look for the jobs that have disappeared. My colleagues at ABC News asked the AFL-CIO for its best examples of workers who lost jobs because of outsourcing. The first people they told us to talk to were Shirley and Ronnie Bernard. The Bernards used to work at a Levi's factory in Knoxville, TN. But then, Levi's sent jobs to Mexico and closed that plant. It 'tore a lot of people up because some people have been here since they were 16 years of age, and they've been here like 20-something-odd years,' one woman told the local ABC affiliate. People 'were in tears,' said a man. ... But it's restricting outsourcing that would be un-American and stupid. Outsourcing benefitsthe middle class by bringing lower prices."

A British outsourcing success: "Mr Dyson ... caused something of a stink a couple of years ago when he announced that he was moving production of his cleaners from Wiltshire, not to euroland but to Malaysia. The move cost 865 jobs, and was seen (by the union officials in particular) as another nail in the coffin of British manufacturing. Well, better that than the business failing altogether, is the obvious riposte. But look what's happened since. Manufacturing costs have come rattling down, with the concomitant impact on profits. Those profits have allowed Dyson to employ 100 extra people in Britain, not simply screwing his machines together, but doing the altogether more rewarding and valuable work of developing new products. In addition to employing 1,200 people in Malmesbury, the lower production costs mean the company pays more corporation tax for our dear Chancellor to squander on more hospital administrators (or whatever)".


No comments: