Paul Krugman provides a lot of material about which to write.  Today's column that appeared in the Chronicle is no different; in response, I sent the following letter:
 

re:  The new buzzword:  competitiveness

In claiming that "we'd have more jobs if we exported more and imported less", Paul Krugman is forgetting his historical economists, namely Frederic Bastiat:  economic actions produce not only those effects that are visible, immediate, or obvious, but also other subsequent consequences that aren't readily noticeable or measurable.

If we import more low-cost steel from, say, South Africa, that has an obvious and measurable negative impact on steelworkers in Pittsburgh.  The lost jobs and shuttered steel mills are very visible.

What we don't see, however, is the increase in the number of factory expansions or skyscrapers that are possible because of a decrease in construction costs with the cheaper steel. Or the lower price for car production with the cheaper raw material. Or the new jobs created by an increase in the sale of new cars, laborers for that expanded factory, or by the new construction workers.  All of those are the unseen, but they are equally important.

To claim that exporting more that one imports does not necessarily result in economic growth or "more jobs" is to focus only on the visible and immediate, and to claim that our economy would be better off with more expensive raw materials and consumer products.  We should not ignore economic impacts simply because they are not obvious.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX