海角大神

So Senator Harry Reid, D-Nevada, thinks that the privately-funded United States Olympic Committee 鈥渟hould be ashamed鈥� for providing its teams with uniforms made in China and that the uniforms should be 鈥渂urned.鈥澛� Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Representative Steve Israel, both Democrats from New York,聽quickly 聽weighed in on the controversy with a joint letter to the USOC expressing their displeasure.聽 After courageously聽defending its initial decision and in the teeth of a growing controversy, 聽the USOC blinked and announced that henceforth it will require team uniforms to be domestically manufactured.

But why should the USOC be ashamed of its initial decision?聽 础蝉丑补尘别诲鈥�for using its donors鈥� and sponsors鈥� dollars wisely and economically by聽outfitting the U.S. Olympic teams聽with 聽attractive and high quality uniforms that can be produced less expensively in China than in the U.S.?聽 Ashamed鈥揻or doing what millions of ordinary Americans do every day when they make the most economical use of their scarce dollars by buying Chinese-made products聽at Walmart, or聽when they use an聽Acer notebook, watch a Sony television or vacation on a Norwegian cruise line?聽 I think not.

Indeed, it is Senators Reid and Gillibrand and Representative Israel and聽their ilk in Congress who should be ashamed and burned in effigy.聽 For they and their cronies are responsible for the profoundly anti-consumer聽trade barriers聽that keep the inefficient, zombie U.S.聽clothing 聽industry alive.聽 Despite聽聽the聽enormous protection afforded apparel companies and their union against competition from more efficient foreign manufacturers, in the last ten years employment in apparel manufacturing has fallen from 350,000聽聽聽to 147,300.聽聽聽Last year, 聽it聽was estimated, 98 percent of all apparel and 99 percent of all footwear sold in the U.S. was manufactured abroad.聽 There is nothing regrettable or shameful about this result.聽聽It was brought about by the voluntary choices of American households looking for quality and value in spending their hard-earned incomes.

What is聽shameful and scandalous聽聽is the robbery of 聽American consumers聽聽by聽 corporate welfare policies that prevent them from buying聽in the聽lowest cost聽markets.聽 In 1994, when the last comprehensive study of the costs of protectionism in the U.S was published, it was estimated that the annual cost to consumers of聽clothing (apparel) 聽protection was $21.158 billion.聽 Of this amount,聽apparel聽聽firms and their workers reaped an extra $9.901 billion of ill-gotten gains, while the rest was lost to the economy through 鈥渄ead-weight鈥� 聽inefficiencies or went to the U.S. government in the form of聽 tariff revenues and quota rents.聽聽聽There were an estimated聽聽152,583聽 jobs 鈥渟aved鈥� in this industry at an average 聽annual cost of聽聽$138,666 per job, far more than the average worker earned.聽 It would have been far, far cheaper to permit the聽workers to be laid off and simply pay them聽their regular wages and retraining costs out of general government revenues until they found new jobs.聽聽This transparent policy would have saved consumers billions,聽permitted them to engage in free trade with whomever they wished, and prevented inefficient production from continuing to distort the U.S. economy.聽 But of course this would have cut off corporate welfare to clothing firms and caused a powerful union to shrink and lose dues revenues, both of which contribute heavily to Congressional elections.聽 And it is unlikely that the heavily-burdened U.S. 聽taxpayer would have approved聽of such special treatment of a small group of workers.聽 聽聽

In any case, you can be sure that Reebok, Levi鈥檚, and Champion, the previous U.S. manufacturers of Olympic and Team USA uniforms, 聽as well as the Union of Needletrades, Industrial, and Textile Employees (UNITE)聽are very grateful to Senator Reid et al. and come election time will somehow find a way to generously show their gratitude.