[Industrialblog,
February 25, 2005]
Pay to Play: You read it here first
In Philadelphia we've got a bit of a scandal, where — shocker — city officials are accused of giving city contracts to businesses that pay off, er, city officials. I know that no one will believe that anything like this could happen in Philadelphia given the pristine record of honorable city government in the city, but alas, it appears to be true.
So leaving aside the scandal for a moment I started thinking about the implications of pay for play. And then it hit me, here's our solution to the trade deficit:
Why doesn't the United States, in lieu of tariffs on individual items, sell access to its markets? We could have a "pay for play" system.
Pretty easy to set up and negotiate, because we'd have all the leverage. Japan — you want to sell cars to all those American commuters? $30 billion cash gets you unlimited access to the American consumer for one year. China? $80 billion and you can go straight to the markets? France? $100 billion.
Sure, it could cause a bit of retribution, but realistically, wouldn't we have the leverage? Our markets are bigger, which is why there's a trade deficit to begin with. Our "pay for play" access fee would dramatically reduce those trade deficits and allow us to recapture the income.
And yes, some might say that we already do that when it comes to national-debt financing ... and they'd be partially right. But instead of loaning us the money, we'd make them give it to us outright.
I'm telling, it's the solution to our financial problems in this country. Pay to play.
So leaving aside the scandal for a moment I started thinking about the implications of pay for play. And then it hit me, here's our solution to the trade deficit:
Why doesn't the United States, in lieu of tariffs on individual items, sell access to its markets? We could have a "pay for play" system.
Pretty easy to set up and negotiate, because we'd have all the leverage. Japan — you want to sell cars to all those American commuters? $30 billion cash gets you unlimited access to the American consumer for one year. China? $80 billion and you can go straight to the markets? France? $100 billion.
Sure, it could cause a bit of retribution, but realistically, wouldn't we have the leverage? Our markets are bigger, which is why there's a trade deficit to begin with. Our "pay for play" access fee would dramatically reduce those trade deficits and allow us to recapture the income.
And yes, some might say that we already do that when it comes to national-debt financing ... and they'd be partially right. But instead of loaning us the money, we'd make them give it to us outright.
I'm telling, it's the solution to our financial problems in this country. Pay to play.