Next week will be consequential for one world trade, as national leaders gather in Sydney, Australia for a meeting of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation countries. (APEC’s home page.) From The Australian:

THE Bush administration is urging fellow APEC members to consider next week’s meeting in Sydney a make-or-break moment in the future of global trade talks. The US also wants to use the meeting to press its case for an APEC-wide regional free trade zone.

Speaking in Washington yesterday, US Trade Representative Susan Schwab denied the US was heading down a protectionist path, despite rising anti-trade talk in the Democrat-controlled Congress. And she warned that APEC represented the last ministerial and leaders summit before global trade talks, called the Doha Round, reconvened in Geneva next month.

“Therefore the leaders at APEC have the opportunity to help propel the talks forward,” Ms Schwab said. “It doesn’t guarantee success but the APEC members have the opportunity to build some traction.”

Defense and the Iraq war are also on the agenda of bilateral meetings between President Bush and Prime Minister Howard.

The White House held a briefing on APEC yesterday with Dennis Wilder, National Security Council Senior Director for Asian Affairs, and Dan Price, Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs. Price emphasized the Doha considerations:

[A] successful conclusion of the Doha Round is this administration’s highest multilateral trade priority, and it will be the top economic priority at APEC. The President is committed to a successful conclusion of an ambitious round that creates new trade flows, and he will use this opportunity to urge his counterparts, both in bilateral meetings and in group settings, likewise to be ambitious and to bring the round to a successful close.

The President understands that this is difficult. This is a difficult negotiation. It’s difficult for everyone, including the United States. But the administration is prepared to make the tough choices if others are likewise prepared to make those tough choices to create new trade flows.

That’s the right attitude, and for the sake of the U.S. economy and workers — and exports are really driving economic growth right now — we encourage the Administration to keep working at it. And Congress can do its part by renewing Permanent Trade Authority for negotiating Doha (NAM fact sheet).

“A big Labor Day show this week at “America’s Business with Mike Hambrick,” featuring Representative John Boehner, U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab, Sen. Sam Brownback and a review of the NAM’s Labor Day report on the economy and workers.

As Congress returns from its August recess, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) is on hand to talk trade, energy and taxes, predicting presidential vetoes of excessive spending bills. (Highlights of his comments are available at the America’s Business Blog.)

U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab, taking a break from her world travels, joins us for a far-reaching discussion of global competition and the free trade agreements pending in Congress. The discussion of trade continues with Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, a Republican candidate for president, who is predicting a tough fight with China over its trade and currency practices.

The economy is growing, and 85 percent of workers are earning higher wages, the NAM’s 10th annual Labor Day report concludes. The downside? Manufacturers are finding it harder and harder to fill jobs. NAM Chief Economist David Huether fills us in on the economic trends.

Making his weekly trip into manufacturing history, the NAM’s Hank Cox recalls “The Way it Was.” And we close with NAM President John Engler and “The Last Word,” saluting America’s workers on Labor Day.

For more on “America’s Business” and to listen to the show online, please click here. And don’t forget to check out America’s Business Blog for updates, soundbites and more information.

“From the Wall Street Journal’s Washington Wire:

PARTISANS WRANGLE over workers’ well-being ahead of Labor Day.

National Association of Manufacturers says 82% of work force saw inflation-adjusted wage increases in past year, buffering fallout from mortgage mess. But liberal Economic Policy Institute finds “slow to stalled” progress for typical workers, whose 3% wage gain since 2000 lags behind 20% productivity gain.

The “liberal” Economic Policy Institute is an arm, an adjunct, a weapon of organized labor, and its report reflects the official union line on the economy and jobs.

Here’s the full title of EPI’s Labor Day analysis: “Economy’s Gains Fail to Reach Most Workers’ Paychecks.”

OK, not only is it wrong (see NAM’s Labor Day report), if taken seriously, it reflects such a morose, sad-sack view of the world. Life is horrible, and we’re all victims. Gee….

I was looking for a job, and then I found a job
And heaven knows I’m miserable now

– The Smiths,
Heaven Knows I’m Miserable Now — video

On February 28, the Pacific Research Institute released a study, Wi-Fi Waste: The Disaster of Municipal Communications Networks on the inevitable failure of government-owned, citywide wi-fi networks. The summary:

San Francisco—Government-run municipal telecom networks erode private investment, slow high-tech innovation, mislead consumers, and serve the interests of politicians according to a report published today by the Pacific Research Institute (PRI), a California-based free-market think tank.

That was February. This is today. From the Chronicle:

Mayor Gavin Newsom’s high-profile effort to blanket San Francisco with a free wireless Internet network died Wednesday when provider EarthLink backed out of a proposed contract with the city.

The contract, which was three years in the making, had run into snags with the Board of Supervisors, but ultimately it was undone when Atlanta-based EarthLink announced Tuesday that it no longer believed providing citywide Wi-Fi was economically viable for the company.

So PRI has a proven and keen understanding of how regulation of communications and technology works, or rather, doesn’t work.

A recommendation, then, of PRI’s brand-new report, Net Gains or Net Losses? The Net Neutrality Debate and the Future of the Internet. From the news release:

San Francisco – Imposing a regulatory regime of “net neutrality” would harm consumers, quash innovation and investment, and prove difficult or impossible to change in the future, according to Net Gains or Net Losses? The Net Neutrality Debate and the Future of the Internet, a new report released today by the Pacific Research Institute (PRI).

“At its heart, the net neutrality debate is about price controls, and net-neutrality advocates want government regulation—rather than the open market—to determine what we pay for using the Internet,” said K. Lloyd Billingsley, editorial director at PRI and author of Net Gains or Net Losses?

Report available here in .pdf.

PRI’s analysis was dead on about the faults of municipal wi-fi. Seems like we should pay attention to the institute’s analysis of net regulation, too.

Alas, here in D.C., we have no state or county fair to attend.*

But another unlikely jurisdiction, L.A. County, does, and darn if its promotional spots aren’t the funniest thing we’ve seen since visiting the rabbit barn in Minot.

Here’s a 30-second commercial depicting a culture clash, sheep versus denizens of Rodeo Drive. And another, how many carbs in cotton candy?

And to the left there is a video from a previous year’s advertising campaign. That’s one creative advertising firm.

Oh, and the entertainment line-up is pretty good, too. Monster Trucks and the B-52s. A smart pairing, if fraught with potential ironic distance.

*Most scholars believe that it would take a constitutional amendment to achieve a D.C. State Fair, although activists insist a simple act of Congress would do.

Safe to say that manufacturers were outnumbered at today’s EPA hearings in Philadelphia and Los Angeles on the proposed, more restrictive ground-level ozone regulations. But it’s the persuasiveness of the science and economics that should carry the day, not the emoting of activists. And on the science and economics, we’re confident of our case.

Jack Stewart, president of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, testified in California. His testimony is here in .pdf form. Jack walks through the case for maintaining the current standards as both environmentally and economically appropriate, and it’s certainly worth reading. But he makes a point about manufacturing’s commitment to cleaner air that we’ve neglected in earlier posts on ozone. Since activists are always impugning the motives of business, it’s worth noting the reality.

I am proud to say the manufacturers I represent are doing their part to make the air cleaner here in California. I would also add that CMTA and our member companies frequently partner with the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the various air districts in California, including the South Coast Air Quality Management District here in Southern California, to find ways to achieve both cleaner air and a healthy economy to serve a population that grows by 500,000 citizens each year.

In just the past year, CMTA member companies have worked with the regulatory agencies I just mentioned to reduce emissions from oil storage tanks, to reduce diesel emissions, to reduce emissions at our ports, to advance fuel cell technology, to reduce freight train emissions and to improve the environmental quality in the San Joaquin Valley.

The NAM’s Bryan Brendle, bumped from his flight west, testified in Philadelphia. His testimony is here. His conclusion:

There is no sound policy justification for changing the current standard. EPA’s current ozone standard continues to improve air quality nationwide and will continue to do so, according to the agency’s own studies. There is disagreement surrounding the methodologies EPA used to draw its justification toward consideration of a more stringent standard, and the EPA concedes that a high degree of uncertainty surrounds the estimated costs and benefits of a more stringent standard. Because there is less doubt that a more stringent standard will further undermine the competitiveness of the nation’s most dynamic and innovative economic sector, the EPA should preserve the existing standard.

The AP has just moved its story on the hearings. Fair snapshot.

We just have to get tougher with them (China). We have to get tougher with them were it counts – which is dollars. I would be willing to put tariffs on China for their failure to defend and to protect our intellectual property in china or and their failure to allow their currency to float.

That’s Senator Sam Brownback, calling for the United States to ratchet up the pressure against China. A Republican candidate for President, the Kansas Senator talks about trade and U.S.-China relations on this weekend’s “America’s Business with Mike Hambrick.” He’s not shying away from conflict. More Brownback:

We have to recognize and prepare the American public that this could be a nasty fight that takes place. Are we going to just continue on this route that we are on and allow them to steal 90% of the intellectual property that ends up in their country?

You can listen to the Senator’s comments through an .mp3 soundfile here.

For more on “America’s Business with Mike Hambrick” and to listen to the new show beginning Friday, please go to the AB homepage.

The Philadelphia Inquirer today, in “Curbing Pollution,” editorially calls for the EPA to enact stricter ozone standards, siding with the excessive, expensive, jobs-killing regulations based on debatable science and methodology. To the editorial page’s credit, unlike the L.A. Times, the Inquirer at least acknowledges some consequence or cost.

No question, it could boost industry and consumer costs to limit the power-plant and auto emissions that trigger much of the nation’s smog.

Yeah, no question. And if those costs exceed the benefits by twofold, fivefold, tenfold? If those costs reduce economic growth and destroy jobs? Still go ahead?

Well, in the world of small favors, the Inquirer did devote 24 words to the counterarguments. A fleeting, glib, dismissive acknowledgement, but it’s more than the L.A. Times could manage.

UPDATE (12:15 p.m.): The San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial, “California needs tougher rules on ozone” simply ignores any question of cost. It makes no effort toward cost-benefit analysis or recognizing there may be another legitimate point of view. The only argument, other than emotional, is an appeal to authority: “an outside panel of experts.” It’s as if the writers mean the editorials not to be an effort to persuade, but purely a statement of faith.

From Bizjournals.com:

American workers received the broadest gain in wages since 2000 during the past 12 months, according to National Association of Manufacturers’ Annual Labor Day Report.

The report, released Tuesday, said that 95 million working Americans, or 82 percent of the workforce, received real wage gains.

“This marks the broadest gain in real wages since 2000 when 95 percent of the workforce experienced real wage gains,” said NAM Chief Economist David Huether.

As Huether notes in the NAM Labor Day report (available at the NAM’s Labor Day Report page), “[It] was not until the unemployment rate moderated over a similar four-year period (1992-1996) that real wage growth began to take place during the expansion in the 1990s.”

So the best economic news in a decade, despite housing? We return to the topic in light of today’s news, bannered at the Drudge Report. From the AP’s economics writer this morning:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The economy grew at its strongest pace in more than a year during the spring as solid improvements in international trade and business investment helped offset weakness in housing.

The gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic health, expanded at an annual rate of 4 percent in the April-June quarter, significantly higher than the 3.4 percent rate the government had initially estimated a month ago, the Commerce Department reported Thursday.

Just a little balance to the news’ tendency to find the economy’s dark clouds always building, threatening, looming.

Excellent New York Times op-ed today, “Terror’s Purse Strings,” a clear-eyed view of the manufacturing and distribution of counterfeit fashion and accessories. About 11 percent of the world’s clothing is counterfeit, experts say.

Most people think that buying an imitation handbag or wallet is harmless, a victimless crime. But the counterfeiting rackets are run by crime syndicates that also deal in narcotics, weapons, child prostitution, human trafficking and terrorism. Ronald K. Noble, the secretary general of Interpol, told the House of Representatives Committee on International Relations that profits from the sale of counterfeit goods have gone to groups associated with Hezbollah, the Shiite terrorist group, paramilitary organizations in Northern Ireland and FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.

Sales of counterfeit T-shirts may have helped finance the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, according to the International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition. “Profits from counterfeiting are one of the three main sources of income supporting international terrorism,” said Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism expert at the University of St. Andrews, in Scotland.

Reporter Dana Thomas recounts a raid she joined in China.

The NAM is a member of the Coalition against Counterfeiting and Piracy. We have an online resource kit devoted to the topic.