We Have a Printing Paper Problem
A new supply chain parable for our times

I, Magazine, simple though I appear to be, merit your wonder and awe. I am seemingly so simple, yet not a single person on the face of this Earth knows how to make me.
Fans of the great Leonard Read will recognize (and hopefully forgive) the bastardization of his lovely market parable, "I, Pencil." As Milton Friedman wrote of this brief, powerful essay by the founder of the Foundation for Economic Education: "I know of no other piece of literature that so succinctly, persuasively, and effectively illustrates the meaning of both Adam Smith's invisible hand—the possibility of cooperation without coercion—and Friedrich Hayek's emphasis on the importance of dispersed knowledge and the role of the price system in communicating information."
While my affection for Read's essay remains undimmed, my faith in the mechanisms it describes has been tested over the last several months. I'm not alone in this: Consumers around the world are more aware than ever before of the workings of their supply chains—and of what happens to prices and availability when those lines are strained. From the toilet paper shortage that kicked off the pandemic to the semiconductor crunch of 2022, it's been an education.
Until recently, I had only the vaguest grasp of the specific complex market that enabled the physical version of Reason magazine to come into being. This is as it should be; my ignorance was one of the great gifts of functioning markets.
For the last 17 years, Reason has bought its paper in enormous lots from UPM-Kymmene Oyj, a Helsinki-based company. A typical order is 20 metric tons. Shipping containers of UPM paper float from Kotka-Hamina or other ports to Baltimore on the slowest of slow boats, where they are unloaded onto trucks and taken to Little Rock, Arkansas. There, Reason is printed by Democrat Printing & Lithographing Co., a family firm founded in 1871, alongside dozens of other publications. Each issue is then delivered to readers by the planes, trains, trucks, and weary feet of the U.S. Postal Service. All of this is coordinated by Reason's publisher, Mike Alissi.
Several months back, though, prices started to rise at every step of this process. And prices, as Hayek taught us, contain information. They were warning, it turns out, of a dire turn of events.
The story of what went wrong with the paper supply begins before the pandemic. As many publications—periodicals and books, as well as business mailings, election materials, and more—shifted to digital, paper mills found themselves with too much capacity and too much supply. Prices were low, and paper was easy to obtain on short notice. So available, in fact, that most customers didn't bother to keep large amounts of inventory on hand.
This situation was not terribly favorable to paper producers. So they adapted. They took some plants offline, and they retooled others to produce the kind of paper that is useful in packaging—a growing segment of the market as e-commerce boomed.
Then the pandemic hit, and the paper industry suffered as all industries suffered, from lockdowns, labor shortages, and, eventually, a lack of raw materials as global shipping got weird.
The price of wood pulp spiked, for instance. China overtook the U.S. in 2009 as the top producer and consumer of paper products, and an environmental initiative in China that shut down 279 pulp and paper mills may have been partially responsible for an increase in the price of wood pulp—it rose from about $750 per metric ton in 2020 to almost $1,200 per metric ton in 2021.
Things were already tight when UPM workers went on strike. The relationship between employers and workers in Finland tends to be pretty peaceable, so at first this didn't seem like a huge cause for alarm, even given that the system was already under some stress. But the strike, which began on January 1, 2022, stretched on and on.
Since Finnish labor politics are rarely covered in detail in the English-language press, our trusty paper broker Cliff Roth resorted to getting hot gossip from a pal in Finland. The news was not good. "As you'll read," Roth wrote atop an April Google-translated dispatch, "the 'Printing Paper' talks have been temporarily suspended by the Arbitrator, while talks in other product areas continue, because the 'Printing Paper' parties are so far apart."
Finally, on April 22, the parties came to a resolution, and the strike ended. But, as described above, paper doesn't move quickly. Even without an ongoing pandemic, it would take a while to get the plants back online, the shippers back under contract, and more.
"I started in the paper business in 1969," says Roth, who has supplied Reason with paper for decades. "Over that period, there have been tight markets. There have been markets where the buyers were scrambling and the sellers were more or less on the top of the hill. That cycles every four or five years. But I have never seen anything like this in all those years. It has just been absolutely incredible."
As we scrounge around to find paper in tough times, I'm reminded of another gal who faced some similar challenges.
Ayn Rand, not famed for her brevity, struggled to find a publisher for The Fountainhead and then immediately ran face-first into wartime paper shortages. She fought cuts to her copy fiercely, and when the book was finally printed in 1943, it was a relatively small run of 7,500 copies. Despite brutal reviews, demand grew until her publisher had to cut a deal with another printer, Blakiston—"a small press with a large paper quota," according to Rand biographer Jennifer Burns.
Rand was the master of the snippy business letter. I recommend browsing the Ayn Rand Institute's archives if you're ever at a loss for words in your own workaday correspondence. In one of many hectoring missives, she wrote to her publisher: "War conditions of the printing industry do not relieve you of the contractual obligation to keep my book in print in step with the demand. Since we know that everything is done slower now, we must make our calculations accordingly."
And so must Reason. It's fitting that this is our summer double issue and a special book issue, revived from a past era when editions of the magazine devoted to books were more common. Book sales were at an all-time high during the pandemic, with folks setting aside once-popular self-help books to read first about baking and then social justice, before finally giving in to the temptation of adult fiction. That uptick in reading is a double-edged sword for us this month, editorially. With so many books to cover, we needed every page of this double issue, even as those pages have grown both expensive and scarce. The 2022 books issue focuses on banned books, with a rather broad interpretation of the forces that can keep books out of readers' hands, including factors you might not think of as traditional state censorship.
The scramble to find paper has been rough, but it is still infinitely preferable to any centrally managed or allocated process. For one thing, you can be rather sure that a magazine that questions the conduct of economic regulators at every turn would find itself at the end of the line for paper even in the best of times.
In the short run, Reason is going to show up at your house on some unusual paper. Our usual stuff won't be available for months. We've already been subbing in some slightly different papers, but this one should be noticeably so: It's matte, instead of our usual silk. According to Roth, it's also "toothier." It's also a little more likely to crease and a lot more expensive to ship, since it's heavier.
We hope you'll bear with us, because we're not ready to give up on dead trees yet. As Read well knew, there's something miraculous about holding the product of so many people's labor and ideas in your hands—a tangible representation of the marvelously free, interconnected world in which we live.
"The lesson I have to teach is this," declared Read's personified pencil. "Leave all creative energies uninhibited. Merely organize society to act in harmony with this lesson. Let society's legal apparatus remove all obstacles the best it can. Permit these creative know-hows freely to flow. Have faith that free men and women will respond to the Invisible Hand. This faith will be confirmed."
I, Magazine, seemingly simple though I am, offer the miracle of my creation as testimony that this is a practical faith.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "We Have a Printing Paper Problem."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"There, Reason is printed by Democrat Printing & Lithographing Co."
That explains so much - - - - - - - - - - - -
I actually have made $18290 within a calendar month via working easy jobs from a laptop...~ni185~As I had lost my last business, I was so upset and thank God I searched this simple job achieving this I'm ready to achieve thousand of dollars just from my home...~ni185~All of you can certainly join this best job and could collect extra money
online visiting this site...> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
Started in 1871, wonder what was going on then for a new company to have that name ...
I actually have made $30,030 simply in 5 weeks straightforwardly running part-time from my apartment. Immediately whilst I’ve misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into exhausted and fortunately I located this pinnacle on line task & with this I am in (ebt-05) a function to reap lots immediately thru my home.
Everybody is capable of get this first-rate career & can benefit greater bucks online going this article.
.
>>>> http://payout11.tk
Klan rallies.
"Prices were low, and paper was easy to obtain on short notice. So available, in fact, that most customers didn't bother to keep large amounts of inventory on hand."
More and more I'm convinced the problem here isn't Covid created supply disruptions, or the war in Ukraine. It's something much more basic: Idiot "business schools" taught managers that inventories should be cut to the bone, on the assumption that everything would always go exactly right. And pursuing that last fraction of a percent of cost, they took every last bit of safety margin out of every system on the globe.
And when every last bit of margin had been wrung out of the entire global supply chain, and it stood there like a cliff ready to fall at the drop of a pebble, a pebble inevitably dropped. And we're living in the middle of the resulting avalanche.
Burn the business schools to the ground, and salt the earth where they stood, and relegate everyone who graduated from one to sweeping warehouses. It may be the only way to save civilization.
To be fair, idiots in business management are matched by idiots in the consumer population.
My favorite example is air travel. Over the past couple of decades, people have pursued the lowest possible fares. Now, they complain about shitty experiences, service, and reliability. Like frogs in a pan, only the frogs themselves turn up the heat.
"...Over the past couple of decades, people have pursued the lowest possible fares. Now, they complain about shitty experiences, service, and reliability..."
Yes, and they griped when prices were higher. Did you have a point?
People are, always have been, and alway will be, idiots.
But at least a free market generally gives idiots what they ask for, both good and bad. Our modern version of democracy seems dedicated to giving idiots what they want, while protecting them from consequences.
Start now earning every week more than $7,000 to 8,000 by doing very simple and easy home based job online. Last month i have made $32,735 by doing this online job just in my part time for only 2 hrs. a day using my laptop. This job is just awesome and easy to do in part time. Everybody can now get this and start earning more dollars online just by follow:-
.
instructions here:☛☛ https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
You are a sex worker?
One time on a tour for our engineering students, Toyota staff were bragging that many parts of the car didn't arrive at the San Antonio plant until less than an hour it was assembled.
Kind of hard to buy a new Toyota right now.
Might be because the various governments fucked the economy over the last couple of years?
The government had nothing to do with businesses adopting risky supply and sourcing policies.
How naive are you? Inventory taxes ring a bell? California used to have, may still have, the terrible idea that inventory should be taxed, thus stores were famous for all their end of year blowout sales, doing their damnedest to dump inventory and reduce taxes.
You smell like one of those profit-hating fools who think two conflicting thoughts:
* Business people dream of nothing but how to screw people out of money, all day long, all night long.
* Business people are too damned stupid to see how much money they could lose from bad business decisions
Can't be both, Jackson. One of the other.
If either one was always true, you might have some rationale behind wanting to be part of the elite who tell them how to conduct business. But markets drive out the businesses where either is true, and both cannot be true.
So fuck off, econ illiterate.
There was a big run on automobile haulers the week of "inventory" taking; it was actually cheaper to rent haulers and drive cars to Nevada for the weekend than to pay the taxes.
Sad but true.
(Yeah, I left CA in the early eighties, I saw it coming)
I did this, strangely enough, for a paper company. Week of inventory about 10 trucks got loaded with random paper and sent 1,300 miles to one of their other plants who promptly turned us around and sent us back. We got back just as inventory was ending. Did it every year
Interesting. I used to at a newspaper. Completely different line of business, but there was a monthly, probably illegal fraudulent inflation of subscriber numbers that worked in a somewhat similar manner.
"The government had nothing to do with businesses adopting risky supply and sourcing policies."
Everything businesses do involves risk. If you think you're better at it, why, start a business and tell us how you did.
Other than that, I'm gonna go out on a very shot limb and mention you don't know what you're talking about.
Well I hope it pulled their hair.
JIT (Just In Time) freight to reduce inventory costs was all the rage a number of years ago. I remember a canning company that would offload our trucks directly onto the assembly line. Problem was when there was a storm, trucks breaking down, drivers shutdown due to FMCSA Hours Of Service (HOS) rules etc the plant line would shut down. Got so bad that JIT was abandoned. A different food producer tried it again with glass jars a couple of years ago. Such a disaster when they ran out of glass they bought several warehouses and starting keeping glass in stock in case the supplier, a union operation, couldn't or wouldn't supply them.
In the automotive industry, we called it "Just Too Late"
JIT may have been abandoned by name, but the ideas behind it are endemic throughout the world. Why else do we tolerate absolutely key components and materials being single source? Because having redundancy is slightly more expensive.
Yep, and the outfit which paid the higher price and charged more would be competed out of business.
"We" do it since the customers demand it.
Learn how business works or keep your yap shut.
Bullshit.
All the blame cannot be laid at the feet of business majors. All of us customers who wanted low prices are what drove them to seek efficiencies, eliminate warehouses of reserves, etc.
Nope
Excellent non-answer. Wrong as he is, you manage to be even more useless.
It’s all it deserved.
Dilbert Principle, Quiz for Idiot Bosses, Question #1:
Do you believe that anything you don't understand must be easy to do?
Sounds like the motto of the US Congress.
"Just in time" manufacturing can in fact be very fragile when a pack of goons shows up and tells you to turn out the lights because COVID.
Or worse, they pick random manufacturers to shut down, then use emergency powers to tell the rest to keep on manufacturing even when their suppliers have been shut down.
I remember when Michigan's governor told Home Depot and Lowe's to remain open but close off certain aisles; how could any thinking person actually expect that half the economy could continue business as usual when the other half was shut down?
"...how could any thinking person actually expect that half the economy could continue business as usual when the other half was shut down?..."
People who, never in their lives, have worked for a living in a job where they could be fired and certainly have no idea how businesses work.
You're placing the wrong blame in the wrong place.
Just In Time manufacturing saves money, assuming you have a reliable supply chain. Just In Case supply chains, where you keep lots of the stuff you need to make your widgets just in case of disruptions to supply, costs the manufacturer more so they have to raise their prices accordingly. With the Serenity prayer, one prays for the wisdom to know the difference, so one makes good decisions, plus the courage to change the things we can, and the serenity to accept the things we cannot change. I know I cannot change the Covid virus, and have no chance of changing the government with my lonely libertarian vote.
The blame, IMHO, should be directed at Dr. Fauci and the US federal government who gave us supply disruptions via the funding of the creation of a very communicable virus that's killed 6 million people, who farmed it the lab work to the Chinese Communist Party, who don't follow safety protocols (or maybe they do and they intentionally released it - as you're talking about human stupidity) rather than doing it at one of our bio-weapons labs. And let's not forget the power hungry political diktats forcing people to close their businesses that supply other businesses.
"my faith in the mechanisms it describes has been tested over the last several months. "
You are aware that all of these disruptions are goverment caused and not market caused.
Not storing paper? There is a thing called inventory tax that makes having inventory a liability.
Unable to unload cargo ships?
The longshomans union fought to not have a third shift and to make buying automation equipment illegal
per Tax Foundation
Not disputing your point, I was just curious and looked it up. California is notably absent from the list (?!)
California used to have an inventory tax which was notorious in its day for how heavy handed it was.
California calls it a "business property tax" which is totally not an inventory tax
No, the "property tax" (actually "use tax") is not the "inventory tax". The "use tax" is charged on out-of-state purchases of goods not for resale. CA can charge "use tax" on our office furniture, computers, shelving, fork-lifts; anything tangible used in our business which most of us would consider capital costs.
It is not charged on for-sale inventory.
"There is a thing called inventory tax that makes having inventory a liability."
Doesn't even take a tax; inventory is money sitting there on the floor, producing no income. You can borrow against it for capital, but now you're paying interest to keep it sitting on the floor.
If possible, we'd prefer delivery just prior to shipment of the product, but we can't get suppliers to deliver (and invoice) one-at-a-time service, so we devote a lot of time analyzing sales history to time purchases as close to JIT as we can get.
"...Then the pandemic hit, and the paper industry suffered as all industries suffered, from lockdowns, labor shortages, and, eventually, a lack of raw materials as global shipping got weird..."
No, 'the pandemic' had nearly zero effect on the issues at hand; the take-over of large parts of the economy by various governments were and are the cause of the problems.
Planned economies DO NOT WORK as has now been demonstrated in what were relatively free markets, and until the governments quit meddling with the economy, we will suffer as we are.
I am really tired of all the headlines and quotes about pandemic havoc when it would take fewer letters to be a bit more honest with lockdown havoc; sure, it would ignore other government interventions, like excessive unemployment pay, industrial policy rejiggering factories on a moment's notice, masking and social distancing requirements restricting customers inside stores. But it would be more honest than pretending government had nothing to do with it, it was all down to the virus.
One thing I found out during the pandemic was that I had lived through two prior flu pandemics which killed more people per capita (late 1950s, late 1960s), and never knew it because government kept its hands off. Everything bad that happened this time was down to government, including excessive deaths, and not just from old folks in retirement home; the vaccines were delayed by several months to get complete testing for all government racial and ethnic groups, as documented by David Bernstein from Volokh, even though those groups are legal fictions, irrelevant to medical needs, and even the government admits they are medically meaningless; yet they persisted, and thousands of people died because the vaccines were delayed.
Government is the root cause of all this lockdown evil.
Dunno if you were here at the time, but after the 2008 meltdown, turd (then using "Shrike") whined about how 'the market' needed regulation, ignoring that banks were and are among the most 'regulated' businesses.
So 'regulated' that they were forced (by government) to make loans no loan officer would ever make absent that pressure.
No, 2008 was not a 'market failure'; it was a measure or how far the market can be distorted by government activity before it fails.
One of my favorite peeves is that "market failure" excuse for government intervention. Markets thrive on failures and deficiencies; that is what tells entrepreneurs where to invest their money. Corruption, bribery, lobbying, all is a market response to government distortion of natural markets.
I suppose one could say the same about government bureaucrats, except that they create the failures which provide the excuses for further expansion and further failures.
And then they do their best to turn the failures into 'successes'.
How 'bout rephrasing that:
And then they do their best to turn other's "failure" into their "successes".
As below, a market "failure" is simply a period of sorting things out (assuming the bureaucrats allow it).
More like "turn their failure into their success by creating the failure of others". They fail in policy, forcing the circumstances that drive others to fail in implementation so they expand their power with more policy (likely to fail as they never suffer the consequences so they never learn anything of value).
Really doesn't matter. Sevo's Law:
When a third party sticks its nose in a free transaction between two parties, one or both loses.
In the case of China; the Chinese population loses (which the CCP has yet to recognize, or care about) while the customers have not lost.
"...One of my favorite peeves is that "market failure" excuse for government intervention. Markets thrive on failures and deficiencies; that is what tells entrepreneurs where to invest their money..."
This is Schumpeter's "creative destruction", mis-understood by Nobartium (below) and the driver of all prosperity.
Cue Bastiat and the candle makers...
How idiotic to get plain printing paper from Finland sent to Arkansas. It’s like living in Alaska and getting your crab flown in from Maryland
Ever hear of comparative advantage?
Come on. We would all be better off if every country, or state, or county was completely self sufficient. Of course, the new iPhone might be a bit bigger and take a bit longer, since that one guy can only work so fast and has to use shiny rocks and frog guts.
That's no excuse for a country as large as the US to be dependent on one's halfway across the planet.
We have way more natural resources here. We just need to throw the greenies into Mt Saint Hellens.
Another econ illiterate.
Pay attention, this is a simple lesson. Suppose you bring all that foreign production over here.
First thing, since it was cheaper to make it overseas and ship it here, the local production is going to use more resources than it took overseas.
Second thing, where are you going to get all the workers and capital to produce that product locally? They are currently producing something else; if you outbid their current employers, you are causing inflation. If you use government to force that resource reallocation, you are a fucking statist. And if you do nothing, you will have no new production.
Fuck off, slaver. Go revive the old USSR, or move to China if you like state control so much.
1: OK? Is efficiency the only consideration you make in determining business? If so, venture (sometimes actually vulture) capitalism sounds up your alley.
2: You do know that incentives are what drives businesses, right? By disincentivizing foreign manufacturing, you inevitably give a reason to allocate capital at home. Creative disruption, and all that.
Thanks for not answering either question. Here, I'll simplify it for you:
Everything you make means you don't make something else. Forcing domestic industry to make things inefficiently which used to be bought cheaply from foreigners means you have shut down more of the other domestic industries which lost the resources you have forcibly and inefficiently reallocated.
Too many big words?
You want A1 widgets made in the US, not in China. You force US business XYZ to stop making B2 widgets so they can make A1 widgets. But because XYZ can't make A1 widgets as efficiently as they made B2 widgets, they can't make as many A1 widgets unless they expand by taking employees and other resources from business ABC which makes C3 widgets, so ABC has to make fewer C3 widgets or take resources from business DEF which makes D4 widgets .....
Can you see where that leads? Is that simple enough for your pea brain?
Or even simpler:
1. What is wrong with measuring efficiency? Are you one of those idiots who thinks sheer will power can make up for lack of material goods, such as Japanese WW II leaders?
2. Great, you know the phrase "creative disruption". Too bad you don't understand what it means. What industry are those newly needed resources going to come from -- what products are you willing to stop making in order to make your favored products which used to be made overseas? Remember, you have reversed the efficiency scheme, giving up an efficient production process in favor of an inefficient one, so you will have to use more resources to make that product than it used to take to trade for it, which means you gave up $100 in trade power and have to spend $150 in new production. Where does that $50 extra expenditure for the same output come from -- what Peter are you decreasing production of for the same amount of Paul?
1: Nothing. I asked you if efficiency is your only metric when making economic decisions. I would hope not, because that leads directly to slavery; after all, the most efficient labor cost is 0.
2: That extra expense is a trade-off, in this example, a hedge against a supply limitation. We are literally living that right now. Will every business be able to afford it? Of course not, but if no one does, we all suffer for short-sitedness. On a microcosm, just consider Chick-fil-A: Is it really efficient to close every sunday? Probably not, and I'm betting it gets brought up in uncountable corporate meetings. Instead the owners make a conscious decision to set aside profit for values.
"...I asked you if efficiency is your only metric when making economic decisions. I would hope not, because that leads directly to slavery;..."
Bull shit.
----------------------------------------------
"That extra expense is a trade-off, in this example, a hedge against a supply limitation. We are literally living that right now..."
Because the government fucked the economy for two years. Are you suggesting that business be run such that they can be shut down for lengthy periods and still survive?
Willing to the the cost of goods to make that work?
"after all, the most efficient labor cost is 0."
Yeah, even in a partially free country, people never quit (and quit working so efficiently).
Can we assume that when you do everyday things for yourself, you do your best to avoid efficiency?
Or that s/he is willing to pay the added costs of products offered by 'inefficient' businesses?
Pretty much doubt it...
Lemme guess you're a Democrat, party of slavery, mandated segregation, and mandated integration.
Only damn fools and Democrats (but I repeat myself) think slavery is efficient.
O man, you MUST be a Democrat, since you are now an expert on how random businesses should function for your amusement.
It costs money to be open 7 days a week. Think of a corner mom and pop grocery store. They can stay open, what, 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, only if mom and pop run the store all by themselves. Any more than that, they have to hire somebody else, trust that somebody else, and pay payroll taxes, health insurance, unemployment, all sorts of extra expenses. That's a lot of overhead they may not want to get involved in, and you think they should just roll up their sleeves and work a little harder because you want to suck up labor costs in inefficient businesses because you didn't pass Econ 101?
Everything you want to produce domestically is going to cost you more in production costs than the goods you use to export in order to import those goods. Where do those extra workers come from? What factory stops producing something else so they can produce your goods? Don't blather on about a second or third shift -- that's still extra workers, extra wear and tear on the factory, extra energy, extra materials.
Go ahead and reply if you want another economics reality lesson.
Nobartium:
"1. Get money, start a business.
2. Something, something, something.
3. Take a wheelbarrow to deliver profits to the bank, or toss it all in the pool and swim in it."
The Scrooge McDuck school of business (Wharton is not threatened).
First thing, since it was cheaper to make it overseas and ship it here, the local production is going to use more resources than it took overseas.
Generally speaking, yes, unless that foreign territory heavily subsidizes its industry to make it more "competitive" with foreign ones.
And what is wrong with a foreign government taxing its citizens to make their product cheaper for us? Sucks to be their citizens, great for us.
Remember, predatory pricing to support a monopoly is a myth. It does not work in reality, as a few minutes with pencil and paper will show.
So you're saying the supply chain disruption because of it is "great for us" tell me you're not really this simpleminded.
And in case you didn't notice it's predatory pricing with the backing of the government who can tap unlimited amounts of other people's money to fend off competitors, even making entering the market impossible.
What bit about "doesn't work" did you not comprehend? How does raising taxes more and more affect the cost equation? The more the government raises taxes for its predatory pricing, the more resources it sucks out of its own economy, just as with a monopoly. Contrary to Biden and Magical Monetary Theory, and internet Brrrrrrr, tax money is not unlimited. Print too much, you cause inflation, reducing your money's value, requiring ever more of it to subsidize those exports.
TANSTAAFL, nohow, nowhere, notime.
"So you're saying the supply chain disruption because of it is "great for us" tell me you're not really this simpleminded."
So you're saying you have no understanding of the causes of 'supply chain disruption'? Tell us you're not that stupid.
-----------------------------------------------
"And in case you didn't notice it's predatory pricing with the backing of the government who can tap unlimited amounts of other people's money to fend off competitors, even making entering the market impossible."
That is among the MOST stupid sentences ever written:
1. "Predatory pricing", like "price gouging", does not exist; it is a piece of jargon invented by econ-ignoramuses to somehow justify their imbecility.
2. Similarly, there is no "unlimited amounts of [...] money".
You really ought to STFU; you are in far over your head.
There may or may not be something wrong with it. But it certainly means that the advantage that that foreign nation has is not an economic advantage or comparative advantage, but some kind of political choice.
You are misapplying free market economics to a situation that isn't governed by economics. China or Finland are not profit-maximizing entities operating in a free market, they are nations run by politicians pursuing political aims. Their workers can't just move to US employers if they aren't paid enough.
In fact, China is clearly using trade and manufacturing in an attempt to gain military and political advantages over the US and to manipulate US politics.
"There may or may not be something wrong with it. But it certainly means that the advantage that that foreign nation has is not an economic advantage or comparative advantage, but some kind of political choice."
You are too stupid to understand what "comparative advantage" means; as mentioned above the PRICE includes all costs, not just those whom idiots like you attempt to explain away. You should STFU.
-------------------------------------------------------
"You are misapplying free market economics to a situation that isn't governed by economics. China or Finland are not profit-maximizing entities operating in a free market, they are nations run by politicians pursuing political aims. Their workers can't just move to US employers if they aren't paid enough."
As an econ-ignoramus, you are too stupid to understand what "comparative advantage" means"; as mentioned above the PRICE includes all costs, not just those whom idiots like you attempt to explain away. You should STFU.
No, Sevo, YOU are too stupid to know what comparative advantage means.
If a seller of stolen iPhones is cheaper than the manufacturer of stolen iPhones, that's not because of "comparative advantage".
If the seller of goods manufactured with stolen labor is cheaper than the seller of goods manufactured in a free market, that's not because of "comparative advantage".
That would be true if the US and China were free market economies with unrestricted trade and unrestricted movement of people and capital between them. In reality, costs in the US are not dominated by resources but by government policy and taxes.
Compared to other nations, the US is overly reliant on human labor; that is again not the consequence of free market forces, but of politically motivated government interventions in the market.
Says the guy who is busy defending state control of the economy, both in the US and in China.
"First thing, since it was cheaper to make it overseas and ship it here, the local production is going to use more resources than it took overseas."
The question is, WHY was it cheaper to make overseas and ship here? WHY? Don't just take that as a given!
It's cheaper to make overseas in large part because our own government is hobbling domestic industry! Nobody is proposing to forcibly drag all that production home while keeping all the regulations that drove it overseas.
We want to drag it home by making manufacturing in the US cheap again!
"...The question is, WHY was it cheaper to make overseas and ship here? WHY? Don't just take that as a given!"
As an econ-ignoramus, you are too stupid to understand what "comparative advantage" means"; as mentioned above the PRICE includes all costs, not just those whom idiots like you attempt to explain away. You should STFU.
The Ricardian model is a statement about how all market participants are better off under free trade and comparative advantage. If one nation uses slave labor, then obviously, the slave laborers are not better off. The value of the labor that is stolen from them subsidizes the goods.
If you want to call the use of slave labor a "comparative advantage" then Ricardian theory doesn't apply anymore. In that case, all you're really doing is using fancy terminology to justify buying stuff that's cheap because it is in part financed by theft. It's like saying that a seller of stolen iPhones has a "comparative advantage" over the manufacturer of iPhones.
"That's no excuse for a country as large as the US to be dependent on one's halfway across the planet."
Bull.
Shit.
Probably more than a little dependent on the ridiculous regulation of the chemicals used in paper making here in the states. Almost every paper mill in 250m radius has moved to cardboard, because the bleaching chemicals are all pretty much verboten.
I've heard of that, and the current situation is a result of too much faith in Ricardo's neat abstraction.
Seemy comment above on econ illiteracy. You are a moron.
I'm sorry to put it bluntly, but you have demonstrated YOUR economic illiteracy by repeatedly misapplying (otherwise correct) arguments about free trade and free markets to government-managed trade between heavily government-managed economies.
The naked reality is that Chinese and European leaderships are using trade and manufacturing as a tool for political power, combined with other political and military tools.
I'm not sorry to point out that:
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
And a conspiracy bullshitter besides.
Feel free to respond to my points with an actual argument. Whenever you're ready.
It is very easy to respond to your bullshit:
You.
Are.
Full
Of.
Shit.
If you're prefer an education, the hourly rate it $385 for idiots like you who are truly econ-ignoramuses; many hours required.Please send your credit card info.
No, it's a result of too much government interference.
Without massive government interference on the Chinese side, China wouldn't have much to sell to the US in the first place.
All you are really saying is that buying from totalitarian regimes that enslave their citizens leads to lower prices for Americans. That is obviously true. It is not, however, an example of free trade, free market economics, or the benefits of comparative advantage.
Oh, and only an econ-ignoramus labels that observation as an "abstraction".
When that apple fell, Newton didn't record an "abstraction".
Ya know what prices do? They sum up in one number the total cost of something. If it is cheaper to ship paper from Finland to Arkansas, that's because the sum total of production and shipping is less. For you green weenies, this means fewer resources were consumed, meaning less emissions total.
Are you one of those idiots who buys groceries from five different stores because the ketchup was 10 cents cheaper at one store, and you ignore both the extra transportation cost and the extra time you wasted, not to mention the extra overhead of each cashier?
Are you one of those idiots who drives 3 miles to the store for a gallon of milk and forgets to factor in the buck a mile total car cost?
Yes I bet you are.
You're forgetting about taxes, fees, regulations, subsidies, etc.
For example, shipping stuff from China is cheaper not because it consumes fewer resources, but because the stuff is produced by effective slave labor in a nation with comparatively little effective regulations.
It's likely the same for paper from Finland.
Your newsletter? I don't want it.
Well, you sure need someone's newsletter, or better yet a basic book on free market economics.
No, an idiot like you who has zero conception of what a "free market" means really ought to STFU.
You have shown yourself to be a fan of econ-ignoramus conspiracy theories.
Try to learn something or stuff it up your ass; your head needs company.
Reason still prints stuff on paper? You're kidding.
Yeah, you get a copy in the mail if you cough up a few coins to support The Reason Foundation.
TANSTAAFL
I give (some) money to Reason yearly, plus Sullum articles sometimes. I beg them not to put me on the mailing list, I'll send them cash with or without hectoring, but they insist on blowing $0.50 stamps sending me useless mail. What can you do?
A shortage of paper is the least of Reason's problems.
A cynical bastard might even suggest it works in their favor. Good thing there aren't any of those around here.
Thomas Sowell:
Seem to be a whole lot of ignoramus politicians here. But I repeat myself.
Hasn't Sowell been canceled yet?
They are still trying to coax Anita Hill out of retirement for that one.
Posted last winter as a result of a truly horrible Christmas day lunch:
...Courtesy of Newsom getting up on the wrong side of the bed several weeks back and a huge remaining cohort of Chicken Littles (fuck you JFree, with your PANIC flag wrapped around the chain on a running chainsaw, ditto CNNMSNBCCBSPBS, etc) about the only place open for lunch was a casino on the SF peninsula. Off we went to about the worst meal in memory (THAT’S Sweet and Sour Pork?!). Wife was considering what we might do next year; not possible.
In an economy ‘planned’ by asshole econ-ignoramuses like Newsom, what might be open next Christmas day pretty much depends on whether he has a hangover or not on a certain day; there is no way to predict that with any degree of reliability.
This needs to be understood in the macro also: International trade functioned very well indeed for years as the managers of the trade companies could see with a good degree of accuracy and in large amounts what was gonna go where and when (don’t waste your time pitching autarchy; another ‘planned’ economy)
Want huge numbers of empty containers where they aren’t needed? Want traffic jams of container ships off the CA coast? Want to put up with crummy meals since restaurants closed? Want shelves empty and inflation besides?
Easy: let even very smart people try to ‘plan’ the economy, let alone econ-ignoramuses like Fauci, Newsom and Cuomo.
Planned economies DO NOT WORK!
Planned economies would work if it weren't for the fifth column capitalist running dog lackeys. That government paycheck is MAGIC, imbuing its recipients with the wisdom, knowledge, and foresight unavailable to those with mere skin in the game.
They would also work if not for accounting and math, both racist white sumpremacy constructs.
The US, China, and Finland are, for practical purposes, planned economies now, given the size of their government sectors and regulatory regimes relative to the rest of the economy.
Reasoning about these countries, or trade between them, in terms of free market economics is laughably naive. And the idea that adopting policies in the US that increase reliance on socialist and communist regimes abroad somehow increases economic liberty is equally ridiculous.
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
And yet strangely enough, I don't remember her whining about a paper problem.
Beautiful! Absolutely beautiful!
I wish I self-centered politician would read, think about and take to heart the message of this: keep your frakin' hands off of things you don't understand!
Oh please. How much paper does it take to print copies of Reason for both people that still subscribe to the dead tree edition?
20 tons, I think it said.
I mean, the paper they use for printing Reason isn't even good for wiping.
When the money printers can't go brrrrrrrrr, this administration will take the supply chain problem seriously.
I have worked in printing for over 40 years. The paper shortage is real. It's been an ongoing thing for a couple of years now. There are many reasons why it happened. And it changes every few weeks.
We use a large amount of C1S (coated on one side) paper. A paper mill in New York that produced it burned down. We had to scramble to find replacements.
We had to decline on a job earlier this year because we had run out of the type of paper it was printed on. The customer thought we weren't telling the truth, so he tried to place an order for several million sheets. He was told they could fulfill the order in about a year. After that, the customer realized that it was a real problem.
I left the paper industry in 1997. China dumping paper in the US for below cost was the reason. The mill I had worked at had 5 machines, it is down to one now. I was able to work in the power generation industry until retirement, along with a lot of other displaced paper mill workers that had the foresight to work in their power department jobs, not their paper making jobs.
This makes me wonder; do you have to file an environmental impact statement before each order?
The basics of running a business are surprisingly simple and a mystery to those who consider themselves to be otherwise knowledgeable:
1) Regardless of the products on offer, all businesses are in business to make money.
2) In order to do so, every business tries to cut costs to the minimum required to deliver the product, and prices the product to the highest amount which still produces sales.
From those two principles most all else derives, but as an example, in an otherwise informative book on the Silk Road, the author Valery Hansen, assumes she is correcting a widely-held misconception where she points out that the camels were not loaded in Venice and traversed some 6,000 miles (?) to Xian! She can be forgiven; she's a Prof with zero experience in reality.
There were huge aggregate profits to be made, end-to-end, but at the time, no business would chance moving and selling the goods farther than the next guaranteed offer of profit and protection from either the outlaws or the government thieves (the Silk Road passed north or south of the Taklamakan Desert, depending on where the Han Chinese were collecting 'customs' to enter a land, like now, which the simply occupied. So, of course, the goods moved in fits and starts, based on (yep) a pretty certain good return on the costs.
Surprised? Perhaps you need to check your ignorance.
I knew there was a problem with excessive regulations, union work rules etc the first time I picked up a load of paper rolls from Oy at the Port of Newark. Drove them all the way to Wisconsin to a paper converter plant less than 10 miles from an American Paper company that produced the exact paper. It was cheaper to cut the trees in Finland, truck it to their plant to make paper, truck it to a port, put it on a ship to America, offload it in Newark onto a truck and then put it 1,000 miles or more away than produce it at a plant a few miles up the road
BTW: the paper company I drove for had a contract come up and the union rep from the big city showed up and convinced the workers to hold firm. The company told them they had to modify the pension, work hours, plant rules etc to stay in business. Big Deal Union Boss told them to strike. The 100yr old papermill is now a parking lot and over 300 workers are on welfare. Yup, closed and torn to the ground but they showed who was boss, didn't they. As a truck driver I easily found another job but guys and gals who started working there right out of high school didn't know how to do anything else and the coding jobs were scarce. I did find some great deals on bass boats, snowmobiles, 4 Wheelers etc..
Unfortunately the towns grocery store, barber shop, 2 restaurants, hardware store, auto parts store, sporting goods store, car dealer, one banks branch, etc all closed down. The town swimming pool that the plant paid for was closed. But those union thugs showed who was in control, didn't they?
Basic principle applying to unions, government, and many other things in life: any third party that you rely on to be strong enough to protect you is also strong enough to abuse you.
Relevant to this topic: Target and other retailers think they have too much inventory on hand. Target’s business plan is to sell it off in second half of year:
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/07/target-markdowns-plan-to-cut-inventory.html
Having run, owned or managed businesses and auto racing teams for, uh some years; (’73 to ’22), I’m guessing that those responding with stupidity are on the Dilbert ‘spectrum’ of “I am ignorant of what it takes, therefore it must be easy”; the econ-ignoramuses seem to be many.
As mentioned above, the price you pay for a good is that aggregate cost of getting that good to you, regardless of how you would choose to assign moral issues to those costs, especially if they are so much assumed bullshit.
In a privately guided tour of Jinjiang several years back (to research Silk Road issues; the benefits of trade are of interest), the Uighur guide, having no love of the Han occupiers, made no mention of 'slave labor’. Got some data? Let's see it; I'm calling bullshit; put up or shut up.
Now, let's assume China is somehow offering 'predatory pricing' for goods; how could the CCP do so? Well, by taxing the citizens/subjects and passing the savings on to the customers. Suffice to say that is an internal problem, of no concern to anyone here.