"Out-compete any other nation." Really?

President Obama talks about competition and international trade, which are Paul Krugman's forte.  What does Krugman have to say?  Ahem, the I wonder if the President will read this Krugman column:

Take the case of General Electric, whose chief executive, Jeffrey Immelt, has just been appointed to head that renamed advisory board. I have nothing against either G.E. or Mr. Immelt. But with fewer than half its workers based in the United States and less than half its revenues coming from U.S. operations, G.E.’s fortunes have very little to do with U.S. prosperity.
By the way, some have praised Mr. Immelt’s appointment on the grounds that at least he represents a company that actually makes things, rather than being yet another financial wheeler-dealer. Sorry to burst this bubble, but these days G.E. derives more revenue from its financial operations than it does from manufacturing — indeed, GE Capital, which received a government guarantee for its debt, was a major beneficiary of the Wall Street bailout.

When Krugman writes like this with facts and logic, it is a sheer pleasure to read his columns, as against the rare ones where he gets a tad shrill.
Anyway, Krugman has more:

Mr. Obama himself may do all right: his approval rating is up, the economy is showing signs of life, and his chances of re-election look pretty good. But the ideology that brought economic disaster in 2008 is back on top — and seems likely to stay there until it brings disaster again. 

Doesn't sound all too good.

Great Recession: imports down. exports down

HT

It feels like .... 2005?

This chart, from the Financial Times, on how far, and how fast, international trade has decreased says it all

The reason?

explanation based on outsourcing: that manufactured goods comprise a bigger proportion of trade today than in the 1930s, when basic commodities had a larger share. Commerce in manufactured goods is more volatile and subject to shifts in demand than commodities, and trade in turn becomes more variable.

“The big shift in manufacturing from northern to southern countries over the past few decades ensures that falls in consumer demand in the north now show up in trade,” says Prof O’Rourke.

Either way, the implication of these explanations for the future of globalisation is moderately encouraging. If a simple fall in demand got trade into its current state, then – absent a flood of protectionist policies – a recovery in demand is likely to get it out.

So, against this background comes Obama's plan to impose tariffs on tires from China. Over to Brad DeLong--not a Republican by any means--who summarizes his response in the title of his post itself:

Barack Obama Does Something Really Stupid: Tire Tariffs

Global warming. Trade. Economic savings?

The NY Times:

Two German ships are poised to complete that transit for the first time, aided by the retreat of Arctic ice that scientists have linked to global warming.

Good news, or bad news?

[The] Russians hope that the transit of the German ships will inaugurate the passage as a reliable shipping route, and that the combination of the melting ice and the economic benefits of the shortcut — it is thousands of miles shorter than various southerly routes — will eventually make the Arctic passage a summer competitor with the Suez Canal.

And where is this headed?

Though the window for sailing the route north of Russia is only a few weeks a year, it trims days to weeks off trips and saves fuel. For example, the voyage from Yokohama, Japan, to Rotterdam via the Northeast Passage is about 4,450 miles shorter than the currently preferred route through the Suez Canal, according to the Russian Ministry of Transport.

Neils Stolberg, the president of the Beluga Group, said this week that the Arctic transit was not an experiment but the beginning of opening the route to outside traffic. He said his company already had new contracts for taking 1,000 tons of goods from Asia to Siberia next summer.