The dollar is losing ground against most foreign currencies and the result is a steady uptick in U.S. exports, driven mainly by manufactured goods, and more exports translates into more good paying manufacturing jobs in the U.S. There are other factors at play, of course, but the value of a nation’s currency is a key determinant of its export performance.

The impact is being felt in other countries, such as Ecuador which adopted the U.S. dollar as its currency back in 2000. As the dollar declines against other Latin American currencies, Ecuador is becoming an increasingly popular shopping Mecca. For example, four years ago, a dollar bought 2,909 Columbian pesos. Today it goes for only 2,185 pesos. Ecuadorean border towns are doing a roaring business with Columbian shoppers searching for bargains.

Of course, the declining dollar is not reducing our trade deficit with China because the Chinese continue to intervene in currency markets, buying U.S. currency and bonds to keep the value of their own currency artificially depressed. Washington is growing impatient with China’s currency manipulation. Watch for legislation to start moving when legislators return from the August recess.

Say you’re a manufacturer with a sensitive stage of production dependent on reliable power. For example, oh, the production of silicon wafers for computer chips.

Perhaps you think twice about your location after reading news like, “High temperatures across California this week could cause electricity shortages statewide, power officials said.”

Seems like it’s been California week here at Shopfloor.org, just by happenstance. Not to knock the state, though. So many things to love about it. For one thing, “Golden State” by John Doe is the single of the year.

The electric version.

NAM President John Engler’s op-ed on the energy bills in Congress appears in Michigan newspapers today, the group with the online presence at Mlive.com. From Energy Bills Will Hit U.S. Competitiveness:

The National Association of Manufacturers strongly supports legislation to encourage energy conservation, efficiency and development of renewable fuels. We must also make full use of our domestic energy resources, including the fossil fuels that are responsible for the generation of the vast majority of U.S. electricity.

Congress needs to use the August recess to reconsider its energy legislation, to reconnect with the real-world, energy-dependent economy that employs America’s men and women. And if Congress wants to be serious about energy reforms, it’s time our elected officials acknowledge that our nation’s vast energy supplies are an economic strength, not an environmental liability.

Today’s Los Angeles Time editorial on the EPA proposed ozone standards, “Stricter on Ozone,” is really a classic of the form, the column that instructs society on how to improve itself (or more accurately, how government — always GOVERNMENT — can improve society) with no thought to the real world in which such action is to occur.

First, define the problem in the most drastic, dramatic way possible. “That stuff you’re breathing could be killing you.” OK. Reader’s attention grabbed.

Most Angelenos refer to the brown haze blanketing the city as smog, but more technically it’s a noxious mix of particulate matter and gases, the prime ingredient being ozone. Most of our ozone comes from cars, trucks and other vehicles, but it’s also produced by smokestacks, wet paint and other sources. It makes asthma worse and might even cause it; ozone also irritates the lungs and can kill those with respiratory problems, especially children and the elderly.

Then, identify the desired action, but do not even mention any contrary facts or arguments.

The federal government strengthened its ozone standard in 1997, but a decade of research has shown that the rules still aren’t strict enough. So the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed tightening them, and will hold a daylong public hearing on the issue today in Los Angeles.

Some more detail, background, etc. And wind up with a scolding tone, characterizing those whom disagree with you as bad actors.

The EPA under the Bush administration has long been trying to shrug off its obligation to regulate ozone, and the proposed standard was developed only after the agency was successfully sued by the American Lung Assn. If it fails to crack down, it clearly will be violating its legal responsibility to protect public health.

You what’s missing from all this? Is typical of editorials (especially L.A. Times editorials) in its absence? Any engagement, even a mention, that there are counterarguments, that for example, EPA’s methodology has been challenged and is not a reliable basis on which to base public policy. That the health arguments are subject to serious debate.

Worse, the L.A. Times makes no acknowledgement that there are costs to the action that’s being demanded. To the L.A. Times, the EPA can simply issue its ruling and force industry and drivers and other offenders to clean up. Problem solved.

Perhaps the Times did not read the EPA’s fact sheet on the proposed standards:

Because of the high degree of uncertainty in these calculations, EPA cannot estimate whether costs will outweigh benefits, or vice versa.

The Times’ editorial borders on magical thinking, the belief that we can just wave a wand and improve the air with no negative consequences whatsoever. And the taxpayers who will bear the costs, the people thrown out of work? Well, they’re just like tiny little ants from up high in the Times’ ivory tower.

UPDATE (1 p.m.): Prompted by handling of another topic entirely (Owen Wilson’s suicide attempt), Slate blogger Mickey Kaus reviews the L.A. Times.

I have run out of ways of saying that the LAT is a pathetic stuffy, faux-newspaper run by respectable liberal twits and doomed to die!

Yeah, and that goes for the editorial page, too!

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), ranking minority member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, makes a tremendously important point about the EPA’s proposed new ozone regulations.

I find it odd that our government would force cities to comply with standards over which they have no control. As we regulate almost every city in America under this standard, even collectively they cannot control the outcome because you have included emissions from Mexico and Canada . What is truly perverse is that as you send jobs over the border, these in turn become emissions we cannot control within our borders. But cities will be penalized nevertheless.

That’s from Senator Inhofe’s opening statement at the July 11th hearing by the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, “Review of EPA’s Proposed Revision to the Ozone NAAQS.”

As we argued in the post immediately below, it seems entirely possible that expensive new regulations could be the straw that breaks the manufacturer’s back, forcing companies in, say, Arizona or Texas or California to relocate their plants to lower-cost regions such as, oh, Mexico. Same airshed, different regulatory environment.

And you know what the political left would shout if that happened? It’s NAFTA’s fault!

Annual net benefits for implementation of the proposed standards (i.e., 0.070 ppm to 0.075 ppm) in 2020 range between -$20 billion and +$23 billion. Because of the high degree of uncertainty in these calculations, EPA cannot estimate whether costs will outweigh benefits, or vice versa.

EPA Fact Sheet - Regulatory Impact Analysis of EPA’s Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ground-Level Ozone

Shouldn’t that one grand uncertainty stop the conversation about the EPA’s proposed new ozone standards right there? We’re going to suck billions and billions of dollars out of the economy to attack smog because it MIGHT help? Maybe?

Background: The first two of five hearings the EPA is holding on new, more restrictive ground-level ozone standards take place tomorrow in Philadelphia and Los Angeles. Details at the EPA page here.

The list of speakers for Philadelphia is here; for Los Angeles, here. The NAM’s Bryan Brendle, our policy expert on emissions, will speak in Los Angeles.

Even as the U.S. air is getting cleaner, many localities are still unable to meet the current standards, and yet the EPA wants to make the requirements even stricter. Contrary to the arguments of those supporting heavier regulations, the scientific case for the new standards id disputable. In fact, a lot of assumptions, big leaps of methodology and extrapolations were made to justify the new limits, as clearly outlined in the Senate committee testimony of Roger O. McClellan, an expert in toxicology and human health-risk analysis, at a hearing last July. We highly recommend you read his presentation.

Some of tomorrow’s testimony will be highly emotional, no doubt, from people who have real health problems; a child with asthma is scheduled to speak in Los Angeles, and no doubt she’ll be prominently featured in the news coverage. But we keep hearing that asthma rates are increasing, a case often made in the most provocative fashion possible. Yet the air is getting cleaner. So something else must be at play.

Stricter regulations also carry enormous costs. As the NAM’s Brendle will testify tomorrow, indeed, the EPA’s estimates of costs range from $10-$22 billion per year, making it among the most expensive federal regulations ever issued.

How would industry respond? In some cases, they could well spend the money on new technology to meet the heavier regulatory standards. But that’s not “found money”; it has to come from someplace else, R&D, health care, capital investment, expansion, payroll.

But in other cases, the rational decision will be to move the business, perhaps overseas, or to another region of the U.S. already in compliance (that is, areas with less industry, which means less economies of scale, which means higher costs). Or, for many business, compliance costs will simply be too much. They’ll close.

Unemployment isn’t so healthy for people, either.

The NAM’s position is that there is no sound policy reason for changing the current standard, which should be allowed to continue to work. Given the disputed methodologies, the EPA proposed standard is serving only a goal of politics, not the environment or public health.

Dr. Patrick Moore is a co-founder of Greenpeace. He lives in Vancouver, British Columbia and is now the chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. Having helped found one of the more vocal environmental advocacy groups, it is worth noting that Dr. Moore has penned a most noteworthy essay that some may find surprising in its direction.

I certainly was surprised.

In an essay in today’s Vancouver Sun — entitled An Inconvenient Fact — Dr. Moore takes issue with some of Hollywood’s would-be environmentalists over their short-sighted posture toward our sustainable, renewable forests. Dr. Moore specifically takes issue with Leonardo DiCaprio’s latest film, 11th Hour and about the nonsense in that film, he says:

DiCaprio’s movie, The 11th Hour, is another example of anti-forestry scare tactics, this time said to be “brilliant and terrifying” by James Christopher of the London Times. Maybe so, but instead of surrendering to the terror, keep in mind that there are solutions to the challenges of climate, and our forests are among them.

It is reassuring to see Dr. Moore’s advocacy on this issue and his statement that there are, in fact, solutions to rising greenhouse gases.

To address climate change, we must use more wood, not less. Using wood sends a signal to the marketplace to grow more trees and to produce more wood.

Introducing more reasoned dialogue into the debate on the environment is surely a better way to go than the ongoing sensationalism that often seems to grip Hollywood and even journalists and editors who should know better. Kudos and a high five to Dr. Moore for speaking up on this important topic.

Ronald Bailey at Reason takes on the anti-bioengineering kooks activists with an interesting, well-reasoned (ahem) blog entry.

If anti-biotechies are so afraid of genetic changes in their foods, why aren’t they out protesting varieties produced by means of mutation breeding? After all, most biotech crops merely change agronomic characteristics, whereas many irradiated varieties have different nutritional profiles.

The point here is NOT that mutation breeding is inherently dangerous. Given a solid record of 80 years of safety, it’s not. The point is that the more precise methods of modern gene-splicing are even safer and should therefore be subject to even less regulation than crops produced by mutation breeding.

Modern crop research is really the key to replicating Norman Borlaug’s Green Revolution to the benefit of humanity.

And Bailey doesn’t even mention the possibilities of cellulosic ethanol.

The California Manufacturers and Technology Association is fighting the good fight for manufacturers on many, many fronts. And Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature insist on making it more difficult for them — and all manufacturers in the Golden State.

At the CMTA blog, Gino DiCaro notes that the Los Angeles Times has reported the maker of Wonder Bread – Interstate Bakeries Corp. — is closing its southern California operations, eliminating 1,300 jobs in the region. The cause? Ever-increasing health care costs and regulations, plus work rules that are simply too byzantine to follow.

Nevertheless, the governor and policymakers are intent in adding even more burdens, such as universal health coverage. Since it’s free, no one will object.

What, it’s not free? And it doesn’t fix the existing health care system?

As the Legislature proceeds with the healthcare debate, they must understand that the current system is too costly and burdensome on everyone, regardless of who’s paying. Manufacturers in California pay operational costs that are 22 percent higher than the rest of the country and still they provide more health coverage than any other industry in the State. Further, small and medium sized businesses can’t do the same thing. They can’t take on expensive coverage and they can’t pay a new health tax on top of their already uncompetitive overall costs.

A reformed health system in California should first address cost drivers — such as over utilization and lack of prevention — or it will devastate the insurance market, force more businesses owners and managers, such as the Wonder Bread executives, to re-think their position in California and put at risk both jobs and the premium benefits that many employees now depend upon.

A serious warning, one that legislators should heed.

Also, the bakery industry — pretty energy-intensive, isn’t it? Natural gas?

The NAM’s report Labor Day Report the effects of a tight labor market, as 82 percent of the private-sector workforce has received real wage gains over the last four quarters — 95 million American workers. This is the broadest wage gain since 2000. A headache for employers seeking to fill jobs, but good news for employees.

Elsewhere, from today’s New York Times:

Chinese wages are on the rise. No reliable figures for average wages exist; the government’s economic data are notably unreliable. But factory owners and experts who monitor the nation’s labor market say that businesses are having a hard time finding able-bodied workers and are having to pay the workers they can find more money.

And higher wages in China are likely to lead to higher prices in the United States — at the mall, at the grocery, even at the gas pump.

Well, that’s the way it’s supposed to work, isn’t it?

The fact that supply-and-demand is allowed to work in China is, historically seen, an astonishingly positive and world-changing developmenet. Just 35 years ago, China was in throes of the murderous Cultural Revolution, where even broaching the topic of free-market economics could land you in prison or a “re-education camp,” or simply dead.

This news could not have happened 35 years ago:

Caterpillar Inc., in a move that underscores the extent to which the Peoria-based company is benefiting from burgeoning Asian demand, disclosed plans Tuesday for a new Chinese manufacturing facility that could turn out as many as 100,000 diesel engines a year….[snip]

In contrast to U.S. manufacturers that simply use China as a low-cost manufacturing platform for goods that will be sold in North America, Caterpillar’s Asian production plants primarily manufacture goods for sale in Asian markets.

It’s a better world today.