If you're doing something important, you're working to make change happen.
But change is difficult, often impossible. Are you trying to change your employees? A entire market? The attitude of a user?
The more clear you can be about the specific change you're hoping for (and why the people you're trying to change will respond to your actions) the more likely it is you'll actually achieve it.
Here are two tempting dead ends:
a. Try to change people who are easy to change, because they show up for clickbait, easy come ons, get rich quick schemes, fringe candidates... the problem is that they're not worth changing.
b. Try to change people who aren't going to change, no matter what. The problem is that while they represent a big chunk of humanity, they're merely going to waste your time.
Nearly every week I receive emails from readers asking me to explain my stance against tariffs. The typical claim I hear is that we need tariffs to preserve jobs.
I respond that tariffs don't protect jobs, they cost jobs. Take steel for example.
Yes, tariffs will save a few hundred or a few thousand steel manufacturing jobs.
But at what cost?
US car manufacturers have to pay more for steel as do US manufacturers of any product that contains steel. And consumers have to pay more.
That's money consumers would otherwise spend elsewhere but cannot.
Get Me the Hell Out of Here
I recently spoke of manufacturing leaving Chicago. Indeed, six corporations fled in July, and another business did so in August. I mentioned the companies in my August 13 post Get Me the Hell Out of Here.
The manufacturer of Oreo cookies recently announced plans to move production of Oreos from Chicago to Mexico, resulting in a loss of 600 U.S. jobs.
This should be a wake-up call to defenders of the U.S. sugar program and other job-destroying trade barriers.
The leading ingredient in Oreos is sugar, and U.S. trade barriers currently require Americans to pay twice the average world prices for sugar.
Sugar-using industries now have a big incentive to relocate from the United States to countries where access to their primary ingredient is not restricted.
If the government wants people making Oreo cookies and similar products to keep their jobs, a logical starting point would be to eliminate the U.S. sugar program, including barriers to imported sugar.
This obvious connection between the lost jobs and sugar quotas was missed by many observers. According to one online comment: "This is why tariff[s] on products coming to U.S must be raised."
According to a 2006 report from the government's International Trade Administration: "Chicago, one of the largest U.S. cities for confectionery manufacturing, has lost nearly one-third of its SCP manufacturing jobs over the last 13 years. These losses are attributed, in part, to high U.S. sugar prices."
For example, The Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers Union consistently has opposed free trade agreements with sugar-producing countries like Australia, Brazil, and Mexico—the kind of trade deals that just might protect their members' jobs.
Sweet Deals
As I have stated, tariffs costs jobs. Yet we hear asinine cries to "raise tariffs" to protect jobs.
Such sweet deals preserve a few jobs (in this case of overly expensive sugar production that is really far better suited to the tropics), at the huge expense of any manufacturer in the US that needs sugar.
Net-net sugar tariffs have cost the US countless jobs.
And in the sweet deal Obama worked out in the Trans-Pacific Partnership protects among other things sugar.
To call TPP a "free trade" agreement is ridiculous.
An excellent free trade agreement would consist of precisely one line of text. I propose "All tariffs and all government subsidies on all goods and services will be eliminated immediately."
Sugar vs. Sugar
Unlike oil, where there are differences between grades, sugar is pretty much sugar. But there are two futures prices. Sugar #11 (the global price), and sugar #16, the US price thanks to tariffs.
Sugar #11: $10.44
Sugar #16: $24.50
US sugar costs 135% more than other countries pay!
And economic fools, including unions, want more tariffs to "protect US jobs".
Sugar, Sugar
As some might have expected, I have a musical tribute to this madness.
Finally, it's safe to say that inane policies cost Illinois those jobs. And it's equally safe to say they fled Illinois to Mexico rather than to another state because of inane tariffs.
High Fructose Corn Syrup
For icing in the cake, please note that sugar tariffs and corn support are behind the use of high fructose corn syrup in US manufactured candy, cookies, and crackers instead of sugar.
China's economic slowdown and a sharp fall in its stock market herald not a crisis but a "necessary" adjustment for the world's second biggest economy, a senior International Monetary Fund official said on Saturday.
Fresh evidence of easing growth in China hammered global stock markets on Friday, driving Wall Street to its steepest one-day drop in nearly four years.
"Monetary policies have been very expansive in recent years and an adjustment is necessary," said Carlo Cottarelli, an IMF executive director representing countries such as Italy and Greece on its board.
"It's totally premature to speak of a crisis in China," he told a press conference.
He reiterated an IMF forecast for a 6.8 percent expansion in the Chinese economy this year, below the 7.4 percent growth achieved in 2014.
"China's real economy is slowing but it's perfectly natural that this should happen ... What happened in recent days is a shock on financial markets which is natural," he added.
China's stock markets have fallen more than 30 percent since mid-year. Following a slew of poor economic data, Beijing devalued the yuan in a surprise move last week.
Crisis Talk Premature?
Is crisis talk premature? The answer depends on what "crisis" means. It may depend on growth estimates as well.
While, I concur this is a "necessary" adjustment, necessary does not imply "no crisis". For example, the US housing crash was a necessary adjustment as well.
Another crash or lengthy correction in equities is coming as well. Does that constitute a crisis?
It certainly will to pension plans that are still hugely underwater despite the massive rally in equities globally.
And what about the IMF forecast for a 6.8 percent expansion in the Chinese economy this year? That estimate I believe we can all laugh at. Actually, nearly all IMF growth forecasts are laughable.
And no one, except apparently the IMF, remotely believes China's stated GDP numbers in recent years. Looking ahead, four percent or even two percent growth are more likely than 6.8 percent (no matter what numbers China officially says).
Would four percent growth constitute a crisis? Two percent?
It depends on your definition, but it will likely come with a very "necessary" (and steep) correction in global equities and junk bonds.
Don't Worry
But hey, don't worry yet. Wait until it's universally clear a crisis is underway. Then worry. That's the apparent message from the IMF.
It's been 31 years since the original "Ghostbusters" was released and the film is still more popular than ever. Harold Remis has unfortunately passed away but the rest of the cast is still alive and well. See how they look now. Bill Murray
YouTube sends email summaries like these so you can keep up with your channel subscriptions. If you no longer want to receive these updates, you may edit your preferences here or unsubscribe.
After you've written the best memo/blog post/novel/screenplay you can possibly imagine writing, after you've contributed your pithiest insight or gone on your best blind date...
and it still hasn't worked...
You really have no choice but to do it again. To do your best work again, as impossible and unfair as that seems.
It compounds over time. Best work followed by best work followed by more best work is far more useful and generous than merely doing your best work once and insisting we understand you.
Postări
