The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

SIRING.W > UKWHE . WH'TSNfcH ,GoT MtK-K' P«g« 4 NORTHWEST HERALD Section B Monday, September 23.1985 Opinion Awaiting the crunch William F. Buckley We are entering the«most serious stage in the matter of protective tariffs, and it is worth it to reflect on a few fundamentals, and on an unpublicized alternative to com­ prehensive protectionism. It ought to be clear that as a general proposition tariffs are uni­ versally harmful. The reason for this is that no nation in the world is naturally endowed to take the au­ tarchic road: i.e., the situation in which nation X makes everything -- absolutely everything -- used by the citizens of nation X. Not only is this impossible (e.g., the United States has no platinum deposits and therefore needs to buy plati­ num from somebody), it is undtg^ sirable. Undesirable because/ of what ,the economists call the doc­ trine of natural advantage. For the United States to grow bananas in hothouses at, say, $10 per banana rather than buy them for a nickel from Honduras would make sense - only to a socialist planner. Therefore, a free flow of goods and services benefits the seller and the buyer mutually. And of course the strategic equilibrium of economic exchange presupposes that a nation will eventually have to sell as much as it buys -- other­ wise, it needs to make up the dif­ ference by selling gold (which it may soon run out of) or capital assets (which are also finite). If a country -- the United States, for example -- falls chronically short in its exports, it is owing to one reason and one alone: The cost of its exports is too high. There are several reasons why this might be. The first is protective barriers abroad, which slap a high tariff on American goods. The second is competitively extravagant costs of manufacture. The third, a dollar whose value is artificially high on the international market. Those who speak with facile tongue pre­ scribe for these problems, a) a retaliatory tariff against the of­ fending countries that have tariffs leveled against us; b) a tariff to protect wage differentials ("you're not going to ask a $10-an- hour worker in America to accept a 40 percent cut," said labor lead­ er Lane Kirkland earlier this week); or c) a dollar devalued by simply causing the appearance of more dollars: i.e., inflation of the money supply. Whereas the first objective, in non-competitive situations, ought to be to make your own products cheaper. The first way to do this is to diminish overhead. What comes immediately to mind is the tax on business. If the United States were to eliminate corporate taxation, competition would drive down the price of American goods. The second means, of course, is to increase technological refine­ ment. This takes a while, means iriOre engineers and scientists go­ ing to college, greater rewards for their ideas on productivity, more automation, and fiscal incentives to save. But it also means, where the limits of technological refine­ ment are reached, reducing wages. This is the most painful of all alternatives, but as someone put it a year ago, you cannot ex­ pect an American earning $10 an hour to buy a car whose assembly­ men are being paid $20 an hour if there is a similar car available at a cheaper price, reflecting a lower wage in a foreign country. There is a single circumstance that justifies a form of protection. And that circumstance is political­ ly defined, not economically de­ fined. If we had reason to believe that Japan intends to destroy De­ troit by subsidizing the manufac­ ture of cheap cars, then we face not competition, but economic ag­ gression. And the way to counte­ nance economic aggression is by counteraggression. Far better (if that were the case) an absolute embargo on Japanese automobiles and a fine-tuned effort to figure out exactly how much Japan is con­ tributing toward the manufacture of an automobile, and setting up a compensatory tariff. To begin with, the figures are almost impos­ sible to devise. And they are quick­ ly vitiated by retaliatory tariffs in kind, and before we know it, we are headed toward a (necessarily impossible) flight toward autar­ chy: and the doctrine of compara­ tive advantage atrophies from dis­ use. What happens then is the world depression that logically fol­ lows any refusal by economies to pursue rational enterprise. What can government do? At a negative level, it should resist the easy call to the convenient tariff. At a tougher level, it should a) eliminate the corporation tax; b) eliminate tax on savings and in­ vestments; 'CY; single out the most offensive trading partner and clamp down an exemplary six- month embargo on purchases of any kind from that Country, as a means of communicating that we can distinguish between competi­ tion and economic aggression. (William Buckley is a columnist for Universal Press Syndicate) • Nat'l editorial sampler The Sacramento (Calif.) Bee For a third time in a month, the Federal Aviation Administration has come under scathing criticism of its enforcement of air safety. The latest is a congressional re­ port charging that the air traffic control system suffers a "dimin­ ishing margin of safety" because of staffing shortages, employee stress and fatigue and an unsea­ soned work force. These are indeed serious charges that the FAA should take with equal seriousness by stepping up the hiring and training of con­ trollers and tighetning aircraft in­ spection procedures. On the face of it, the smaller air traffic control force has to be stretched danger­ ously thin and its controllers pushed beyond safe working-hour limits. Even if the system was somewhat overstaffed for 1981 traffic levels, as the administra­ tion contended at the time, it's hard to believe 2,000 fewer control­ lers -- in a work force that's rela­ tively inexperienced -- can handle today's sharply increased traffic and still maintain the necessary" safety standards. Jackson-Falwell vs. human rights x The recent TV debates -- on "Nightline" and "Good Morning, America" -- between the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Jerry Falwell- over U.S. policy toward South Afri­ ca have given human rights a bad name. Neither speaker has advocated a human-rights approach to the is­ sues of apartheid and divestiture because neither really believes in human rights for all. Jackson believes only in the rights of Third World people who are oppressed by Western re­ gimes. Falwell believes only in the rights of those oppressed by left- wing regimes. I can recall no instance of Jack­ son ever condemning the Soviet Union for violating the human rights of refuseniks like Anatoly Shcharansky (who is in prison for merely wanting to leave his coun­ try, not for wanting to overthrow it), or championing the rights of Cuban dissidents, or victims of op­ pression by black regimes in Africa. , Nor do I recall Falwell standing up for the rights of leftists who are imprisoned in South Africa, the Philippines, Chile or South Korea. For both Jackson and Falwell, "human rights" is a rhetoric of convenience to mask the political programs they espouse. That isn't to say that each does not have a political program that deserves to be debated. Jackson's is to end a particularly odious form of racial discrimination and oppression -- namely, apartheid. Falwell's is to make sure this form of oppression isn't replaced by what he considers an even worse and more total oppression -- namely, Soviet communism. Al­ though it seems clear to many that Soviet communism is not the nec­ essary alternative to the current indefensible situation in South Af­ rica, those are the political terms of the Jackson-Falwell debate. Both ministers invoke God and Christianity in support of their po­ sitions and describe their opposi­ tion as "ungodly anta immoral." Yet both men of God support re­ gimes that have made a mockery of religious liberty. Hoto can Jack­ son invoke the same God he be­ lieves condemns apartheid in sup­ port of Castro, who smothers religious freedom? And why is Jackson's God not shedding as many tears for the Christians, Moslems and Jews who are in So­ viet prisons for following his teach­ ings? Does Falwell's God not love those South African blacks -- in­ cluding church leaders -- who are willing to sacrifice their meager economic sustenance in a quest for dignity and equality? .(MORE) When asked about Soviet oppres­ sion of human rights, Jackson re­ sponded, "Tonight we're discuss­ ing South Africa." When asked to join in a demonstration against Soviet oppression "tflmo?row,w. Jackson remained silent. When pressed by Ted Koppel to "draw a moral equivalent" between apart­ heid in South Africa and the killing of thousands in Uganda or Ethio­ pia, Jackson fudged, referring to the loss of life in our own country during the Civil War and to "the religious tradition in Ethiopia." Of course, Falwell's "demon­ stration at the Soviet Union" isn't one that any self-respecting hu­ man-rights advocate would wel­ come. When Falwell demon­ strates, it isn't in favor of human rights or freedom of choice: It's in favor of his own particular brand of right-wing fundamentalism -- from which he tolerates little dis­ sent within his own churches and schools. If the only world views available were those represented by these two single-minded politician-min­ isters, then we would indeed be facing an apocalyptic choice. The Jacksons and the Falwells of this world cannot live together in har­ mony, because neither respects the rights of the other to a differ­ ent world view. Indeed, they couldn't even debate together with Civility. Koppel had to remind them of their agreement not to turn the debate into an exchange of name-calling. > Fortunately, however, there are sensible alternatives to the Jack­ son-Falwell extremes. Koppel tried to serve as spokesperson for a sensible middle ground, but his role as moderator placed con­ straints on his ability to do more than raise some tough questions for both combatants. Most Americans agree that our government should take actions that might help put an end to apartheid, without turning South Africa over to the Soviet sphere 6f influence or creating massive un­ employment for South African workers. How to achieve this deli­ cate balance is a monumentally difficult practical question that tfce polemicists rarely consider -- nor do, they consider how to enhance the fundamental rights of all vic­ tims of oppression. We need a new dialogue, with new debaters who are more repre1 sentative of what the majority Of thinking Americans believe. But most of all, we need a less political and less partisan approach to hu­ man rights. Neither Jackson nor Falwell have much to . offer in these areas. Someday we may see a human- rights coalition that would seek effective sanctions simultaneously against the abominations inflicted on people by the oppressive right and the oppressive left. Neither Jackson nor Falwell would join such a coalition, for fear of offend: ing their political allies. If such a non-political "rainbow coalition" for human rights were to be creat­ ed, the one participant in the r& cent debates who would feel comA fortable protesting all forms oj - oppression probably would be Ted Koppel. (Alan Dershowitz is a column^ for United Feature Syndicate) ^ Where Yugo, it can always follow It was beautiful. 20 percent infla­ tion, money flying around like snowflakes in a blizzard, and just about anybody who wanted to be broke in this country a decade or so ago, had to work at it. The main criteria for obtaining gainful employ­ ment back then was the ability to stay awake for eight hours. You could also still walk into the showroom of a car dealer, and for less than $6,000, drive out in a shiny new Belchfire, loaded with goodies. Now, it's today. All those fat jobs went away, the money dried up, and broke has become a very common condition. Meanwhile, that new $6,000 Belchfire has become the new $14,000 Spitspark. Now, $14,000 at current in­ terest rates gets you something like $380 car payments for four years, which is a. bit rich for the blood of people on hard times. So there was considerable excite­ ment a couple of weeks ago when the first batch of Yugos arrived in America. The Yugo is a wee car built by Yugoslavians, distinct because- it's the least expensive new car on the market. It's also one of the ugliest, but its a $3,900 blue-light- special for American car shoppers. Chicago Tribune columnist, Mike Royko was growling about the Yugo recently. He contends it should be allowed only in back yards and Guest editorial amusement parks. Yugos, of course, are pokey little things, and Royko ob­ jects to them puttering around on ex­ pressways. He doesn't want tiny Yugos splattered all over the front of his big, powerful, gas-guzzler. He has a point; But, it occurs to me that Yugos could also be very useful. Like for these trendy, fashionable young women you see dancing all over the place lately, minds made of clouds and filling the air with silly babble. At $3,900, they could buy three or four Yugos, in different col­ ors; making it possible for them to color coordinate their cars with their Guest Columnists The guest opinion column ap­ pearing in The Herald is prepared by writers with expertise and ex­ perience in specific areas. Their participation in our Opinion page is welcomed when their comments may give our readers new insight or perspective on local topics of current kfferest. Guest columns should be no longer than two pages of double-spaced/ typewritten copy. Prospective writers are ask­ ed to call 815-459-4040, ext. 291, to make arrangements. outfits. ^ >»r. And, if you pinch petinies, YugdS might be your ticket. Especially if you're handy with a wrench. Ydu could buy three of them for less thap the sticker price on one big! American-made car. Yugos are built in Yugoslavia, which is one of those dreary places run by communists, so< they will undoubtedly break dowm* lot. But with three of them sitting around, you can rob parts and keepr at least one of them running. And with an engine the size of a coffee cup, you'll save a mint on gas. £ Or, if you like to travel, you could, put a handle on top of a Yugo and use it for luggage. For example, you ate. flying to California on your vacation.! Just pack your stuff in your Yugo and; check it through with the baggage.[ When you arrive, simply pluck it off . the conveyer belt, climb in, and driven away in your suitcase. Personally, I plan to stick with myj big American-made gas hog,: although I'm thinking of buying a* Yugo. I'm going to throw away that* stupid dink of nonsense big car com-; panies foist off as spare tires today.; I'll put the Yugo in my trunk instead. ? Then, when I have a flat tire, I'll justi take out my spare car and haul my; tire to the nearest service station. [ The guest columnist, Bill Campbell, is a free-lance writer based in Il­ linois) NORTHWIST HERALD ROBERT A. SHAW Editor and Publ isher livery mile is t. in winter." George Herbert . J M. INGk- Execut ive Edi tor STEVEN H. HUNTER Market ing Director KAREN A. ANDROS Saturday, Edi tor ,o iA MICHAEL E. AAORSCH News Edi tor /Regional DENNIS AA McNAMARA Editor ia l Page Edi tor RONALD L. STANLEY Circulat ion Director i