~Comstock's Ex-Wife Takes The Stand, Jury Says She Likely Cause Rolland Comstock's Death:

-

Alberta Comstock on witness stand (courtesy Springfield News Leader)

She was mad....but was she mad enough to kill or have someone kill for her?

That's the question a civil jury in Greene County will answer this week in regard to the wrongful death lawsuit of prominent attorney and world renowned book collector Rolland Comstock.

Comstock's daughter, Faith Socker, believes her mother, Alberta, is responsible for the murder of her adopted  father on July 2, 2007.

Faith Stocker  (courtesy Springfield News Leader)

-
Defense attorney's for Mrs. Comstock say there is "not one single shred of evidence" that ties their client to the crime scene.

Wrongful death lawsuit's aren't unusual, but in this case it is as there have never been any criminal charges filed against anyone for the murder of Rolland Comstock.

When Rolland Comstock began collecting books, many of them signed first editions, he assuredly had no idea that his death would rival any one of the murder mysteries that lined the shelves in his home library.

Stuart King, who represents Stocker, says his client was convinced of her mother's involvement after she saw pictures of a black attache` case containing confidential legal paperwork, including a handwritten medical directive, belonging to her mother on a sofa inside Comstock's mansion after he was found dead by his longtime assistant Becky Wilcox-Frakes -- and Alberta's admission that she had not been in the house in months.

The Comstock's were divorced in 2005 after thirty eight years of marriage after Alberta Comstock found a matchbook to a gay resort inside a jacket pocket belonging to her husband.  Rolland Comstock admitted that he had been intimate with "someone from the book world" and other young men, but wanted to remain married and "live as things had been the last few years."  Their net worth at the time of the divorce was $1.725 million dollars.

Rolland Comstock

-
Alberta Comstock wasn't interested in living a lie and believes homosexuality is wrong.  However, she was interested in embarrassing the former state representative and causing him emotional pain. "I couldn't stand to look at him," she told jurors.

Alberta Comstock showed Greene County probate clerk, Dana Gray, pictures of Rolland in a compromising position with a man and a second picture of that man naked.  Alberta Comstock told the woman she barely knew that she wanted those who had a high opinion of Rolland to know the real Rolland Comstock.

As part of the couples divorce agreement, Rolland Comstock was ordered to pay his former wife 214,000.00 by December 31, 2005.  When a bank rejected a $15,000.00 check because Comstock's assistant Becky Frakes, who had worked for Comstock for 38 years had signed it. A cashier's check was then sent to Alberta to replace it.  She claimed to have never received the check, so a second was issued with the understanding that if she received it she was to write void on it and send it to her attorney.
-

Rolland Comstock's assistant Becky Wilcox-Frakes

-
But when Rolland was late with the last payment of $54,000.00 all hell broke loose. Alberta Comstock filed legal paperwork to have his law office sold in order to receive her money.  Rolland Comstock had his attorney and best friend, Bob Stillings, obtain a check for the amount owed, plus interest, in January and delivered to the Greene County Sheriff's Office so the business office would not be sold.  Alberta Comstock did not pick up the check and a judge quashed (set aside) Mrs. Comstock's case.

After Mrs. Comstock had filed many lawsuits and showed those compromising photographs to Rolland's colleagues, he and Stillings made the legal decision to seek remedy in federal court.  The federal lawsuit accused her of essentially using the county court system to file frivolous lawsuits against Rolland Comstock.  The discord and "the constant back and forth was never gonna end," Stillings told jurors.

During one deposition Alberta Comstock stated, "I lived with that man for 38 years, and nothing, my life is gone."

Stillings stated on the witness stand that by the time of court ordered mediation, "Alberta Comstock's anger had turned to disdain and disgust for Rolland's activities ." He also told investigators that Rolland would have no reason to be in possession of the original legal documents between Mrs. Comstock and her attorney - or her personal medical directive.
-

Comstock's Greene County mansion

At the heart of the matter was the northern Greene County mansion that sits on 13.5 acres near Willard that they both loved.  As per the divorce agreement the house was put on the market for $800,000.00 (the homes price was later reduced to $675,000.00) and Rolland Comstock was allowed to live in it for two years.
-
Attorneys for Alberta Comstock say she received a call from the realtor on June 25, 2007, who told her Rolland was not maintaining the house.  Frakes told jurors that whenever the Comstock's would talk about finances and the house, "She [Alberta] would scream for revenge."
-
The listing agreement for the house expired the day before Rolland Comstock was found murdered.
-
At a deposition in 2007 Stillings asked Mrs. Comstock if by filing the lawsuits she was trying to embarrass her former husband,  she replied - "No, I wanted my money is all and I didn't trust him to give it to me."

The former lead investigator for the Greene County Sheriff's Office, Frank Duren, told jurors the house was filthy and that the wolves had urinated and defecated throughout the house and had used furniture as chew toys. 
-
Duren said that the kitchen, dining room and den area on the bottom floor of the house had so many ticks covering it that they crunched and exploded under investigators feet leaving bloody footprints.  He also testified that other than crime scene investigators bloody footprints the only other footprints anywhere near where Comstock was found belonged to the dead man.

-
Greene County Detective Kenny Weatherford was called in from vacation and sent to interview Alberta Comstock at her home in Fairland, Oklahoma.  He says he and Lt. Deborah Wade interviewed the frail elderly woman twice that night.  During the first interview she told him someone had stolen a .38 revolver that former Greene County Judge Burrell had given her years ago while she had been recently hospitalized.  She also told them she had gone to a gun store (The Firing Line) near her home that day to have .22 repaired.  When that gun could not be fixed, she purchased another .38 revolver.

When Weatherford and Wade went back about an hour later they mirandized Mrs. Comstock and seized the new gun (which has been eliminated as the murder weapon) and ammo as evidence.  They did not gather any shoes or clothing as evidence, according to Weatherford.  After the second interview Alberta Comstock quit talking to authorities and started invoking her fifth amendment privilege on the advice of her attorney.

Mike Friend, the owner of the gun shop that sits near the MO/OK border, said that Mrs. Comstock paid him in cash with money she kept in a dark bag and told him she was going to go target shooting in Missouri the next day.  On the witness stand this week he said she simply pointed in a direction toward Missouri.  He also testified that Mrs. Comstock had a difficult time handling the gun with one hand, "She wasn't physically strong enough with one hand and with one finger on the trigger to pull it," said Friend.
-
According to court records Alberta Comstock tested partial positive for Gun Shot Residue (GSR.)  Friend told jurors he fired the gun that Comsock purchansed a few times and that Mrs. Comstock handled the gun after it had been fired.
-
Tina Williams Anderson, who worked for Murphy Oil in Monett when Rolland Comstock was murdered   told investigators in 2008 that she remembered Alberta Comstock's red truck with the distinctive front license plate of a smiley face was parked near the business after 4 p.m. on July 2nd.  No video surveillance was gathered from the store or the nearby Wal-Mart.

In 2009 she changed her statement and remembered a woman with gray hair paying for her purchase and noticed the vehicle as the sun was setting around 8 p.m. - yet changed it again in 2010, according to defense attorney Shane Cantin.  In 2008 Anderson pleaded guilty in Lawrence County to statutory rape and sodomy for an incident in 2006.

Comstock in his beloved home libary (courtesy Springfield News Leader)

-
Very little has been known about the ongoing investigation into Comstock's murder, but current lead investigator Weatherford admitted when questioned by Cantin, that authorities did not collect the black attache` case containing Alberta Comstock's legal documents until after the crime scene had been released on July 4th - and did not note that Rolland Comstock's most prized possession, a signed first edition of "Lord of the Flies," worth thousands of dollars was found on a kitchen counter and not inside his beloved home library.

Rolland Comstock's beloved home library

-
Weatherford also told jurors that there is no DNA evidence, hairs or fingerprints that tie Alberta Comstock to the crime scene.

Defense attorneys called a neighbor of Rolland's, Lena Appl, who testified she saw a black truck and a silver truck outside the Comstock mansion on either July 2 or July 3, 2007.  Another neighbor, Mac Mathis, told jurors he believes he heard three or four gunshots coming from Comstock's house the evening of July 2, 2007, when he was outside working on a car.

Alberta Comstock admitted to investigators that the briefcase was hers but says that she left it outside the gate for Rolland in an effort to help him with another case.  Lab results from the Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab found no gravel or vegetation transfer on the case.  Stillings says Rolland Comstock would not have made any kind of deal with his ex-wife without his knowledge.

Defense attorney's say it was an illusion of security at the gate of the home that was supposed to keep intruders away.  The automatic gate that needed a code punched in outside the gate to open it was rarely, if ever, used because the gates closed too slowly and let the hybrid wolves out.  Instead people familiar with the routine at Comstock House got out of their vehicle and unhooked a chain that was wrapped around the top of the gate then got out back out of their vehicle-shut the gate and wrapped the chain back after they entered.

Author Harry Crews note to Rolland

-
Cantin says a "significant" amount of money that Mr. Comstock kept in a kitchen drawer was found to be missing after he was murdered.  He maintains that young men Mr. Comstock employed to work in his beloved home library, other family members, friends or whomever else who knew that the back sliding door was routinely left unlocked could be responsible for Comstock's death.

Alberta Comstock, who suffers from dementia, ongoing heart problems and has had at least two strokes told jurors that she and Rolland had a happy marriage - noting that they traveled frequently and raised five children.

In the past she has refused to answer some questions posed to her by her daughters attorney.  She refused to answer attorney King's questions about when she was last inside her former home, who her phone providers were/are, whom she may have seen or talked to on July 2 - 4, 2007, or when she had last seen the gun that Judge Burrell had given her.

When King asked her if she caused Rolland Comstock's death, she again took the fifth.  When he asked her if she had told News Leader reporter Amos Bridges she wanted him to die of from a heart attack she said-  "No I said I expected him to die of a heart attack."

Robert Wiley, who is now a judge in Stone County and was Alberta Comstock's attorney, told jurors that he made a mistake on some paperwork related to the divorce noting that the original judgment awarded to Alberta was for $115,000 when it was actually closer to $215,000, leaving an unpaid balance of nearly $70,000.00.  Wiley testified that he had to file another motion with the court to get the mistake corrected because Stillings was uncooperative.


Wiley testified that he was unaware that a check for $54,000.00 was left at the sheriff's office. Wiley said if Alberta Comstock had accepted the check it could appear that she agreed with Stillings and that it could be perceived that she accepted it as full payment.

King wants jurors to believe that Wiley and Mrs. Comstock were more interested in the constant legal wrangling and embarrassing Rolland Comstock.
-
Alberta Comstock's sister, Carmel Rhoten, told jurors that in late June she took her sister to visit her ex-husband and to return some books (one of them being Lord of the Flies,) but she stayed in the vehicle.  When Alberta came back, she said Rolland wasn't home.  A short time later Alberta told her she forgot her black bag inside the house but didn't need to go back inside because it didn't contain anything important and she would get it at another time.

Rhoten testified that she saw her 71 year-old sister at her home in Fairland, Oklahoma, (she lives across the street from her sister) twice on the night of July 2, 2007 around the time authorities believe Rolland Comstock was murdered.

King pointed out to jurors that there are now inconsistencies in the sister's testimony.  One of them being the contradictions in Alberta Comstock's statement to authorities that she had not been inside the house for a considerable length of time and her leaving the attache` case at the front gate.
-
Another of Comstock's daughters, Sherry Rose, told jurors she learned of her adopted father's murder from her husband Allen who heard about it at the Greene County courthouse.  "Apparently Becky Frakes called the court and the public administrator's office and all over town, but didn't call me" she said.

Sherry and Allen Rose in the rotunda of the Greene County courthouse attend Comstock's memorial service (courtesy SNL)

-
Allen Rose is a probate attorney who shared an office with Rolland Comstock for years.  Sherry Rose testified that her father's death has divided the family.  She says she is going to have to sue her sister and her father's estate for what was left to her in his will.
-
Lawyers on both sides have continually mentioned drug abuse by Stephen and Michael "Andy" Comstock.  In search warrant returns and testimony in the trial it has been revealed that Andy Comstock's DNA was found on a cigarette butt inside the mansion that he was not allowed inside.
-

In the days following her father's death, as Frakes and Stocker took control over her dad's estate, communication among the siblings ceased, according to Rose.

She told jurors she was not even able to attend her father's funeral, even after attempts to learn of it from the funeral home, "I was not at my father's funeral because no one knew when it was," she said.

When asked if she was part of the wrongful death lawsuit against her mother she responded, "Why would I? I'm outraged at this whole thing," she said.
-
Frank Duren was called back to the stand to clear up issues related to Alberta Comstock's missing gun.  He told jurors that Carmel Roten remembered seeing the gun inside a trailer in Dade County on some property Comstock's son-in-law owned.

Duren was recalled to the stand and told jurors that Allen Rose gave authorities consent to search the Dade County property.  However, they could not search the trailer because it was owned by Comstock.  When authorities arrived Duren said it appeared the trailer had been broken into and had been ransacked and it was checked to see if anyone was inside, but not serched.

-

Faith Stocker was also recalled and testified that she had not set up proper accounting practices for the trust or had not been sending annual statements to the parties of her father's estate because she was still "devastated" at the loss of her father.

Stocker also admitted taking personal loans from the trust to help her business and said she co-mingled trusts funds accounts with her personal accounts to save $150.00 a month in bank fees for maintaining three separate accounts.

Alberta Comstock's attorney's Shane Cantin and Evelyn Mangan want jurors to believe that Stocker misused trust assets.  Stocker's attorney Stuart King told jurors that as a trustee Stocker can withdraw funds as she sees fit...but that she will repay the trust. 

"If any person of interest could have committed this crime holy cow let's look at Rolland's son Michael," Cantin said. "He is a known meth user who has been violent with the family in the past." Cantin says Michael Comstock also stole a .38 caliber gun from Rolland Comstock's home. "Faith isn't suing Michael Comstock because he is a drug user and has nothing she is suing her mother for the last remaining assets she has."

-

Frakes, who is the executrix of Rolland Comstock's estate, told jurors that Comstock's estate settled for $250,000.00 with Alberta Comstock for her half of the house.  The house sold for about $400,000 in May of 2009 after failing to garner a single bid at an auction in June of 2008.

The jury is expected to get the case this afternoon.
-
~BREAKING ~
-
The jury began deliberating shortly after noon.
-
Jurors have asked to see Tina Williams, the Murphy Oil clerk's time card, crime lab reports, Alberta and her sister's depositions and financial records.  They also asked who a monetary judgement would be awarded to.
-
~VERDICT 5:34 p.m.~
-
The jury has decided that they believe Alberta Comstock was responsible for the murder of her ex-husband, Rolland.
-
They awarded Faith Stocker no actual damages.  However, they ruled that the estate should receive the $250,000 Alberta Comstock got for her share of the mansion.  When they whittled it down to aggravated circumstances, the actual awarded amount was $125,000.00.  The decision on how the money will be divided will be made at a later date.

Rube Goldberg Meets American Trade Policy (and Totally-Expected Problems Arise)

I've been travelling over the last couple days, and thus haven't been able to comment yet on the Obama administration's new plan to pass the expanded Trade Adjustment Assistance program that expired in the House earlier this year.  I plan to do a lengthy review of the legal substance of the Administration's actual plans, but for now, let's just get caught up on where things stand.  President Obama's super-awesome scheme can be summarized as follows:

(1) Enter into bi-partisan talks with a willing dupe member of the GOP leadership in an attempt to iron out a compromise between passing the three pending US FTAs with Korea, Colombia and Panama (which Republicans, many Democrats and supposedly the White House really want) and passing TAA (which Democrats, almost no Republicans, and the White House really want);

(2) Get the dupe member of the GOP leadership to speak publicly about how he supports a scaled-back version of TAA in order to get the FTAs passed.

(3) When the "bi-partisan" talks break down because the dupe member of the GOP leadership can't get the support of the House Speaker or his Senate GOP colleagues, walk away and publicly claim that you'll keep working on a "bi-partisan way forward."

(4) Go golfing underground for the weekend.  Secretly craft legislation which (among other naughty things) attaches mega-TAA to the implementing legislation of the most economically significant agreement, the US-Korea FTA.

(5) Have Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) boldly and unexpectedly announce the following Tuesday that a "grand bi-partisan bargain" has been reached, and then sit back and praise the deal as a major "breakthrough," even though there hasn't actually been any, you know, actual GOP support for the "bi-partisan" legislation (even from the lone GOP member who was trying to make a deal).

(6) Schedule a hearing on the combined TAA/FTA legislation at 3p on the Thursday before the July 4th Senate recess, knowing that many GOP Senators on the committee will already have left Washington, and that there won't actually be enough time to consider the dozens of amendments that the few attending GOP Senators (and their Democratic colleagues) have submitted.

(7) Expect Senate and House Republicans, including Speaker Boehner (the guy who, you know, controls the House floor schedule), to instantly cave to the administration's demands and agree to move the legislation exactly as the administration has prepared it, despite the fact that they have uniformly and repeatedly stated that they would do no such thing.

(8) Demagogue any Republican who continues to oppose this "grand bi-partisan breakthrough" as an evil jerk who hates working American families and wants to harm the US economy.

(9) ...

(10) Profit!

It's amazing that this foolproof plan didn't work, but, well, it's already run into major problems:

Senate Republicans today said discussions with Democrats over three pending free trade agreements have become so "noxious" that they've decided to block them.

A Senate panel planned to have a hearing today to discuss free trade agreements with Panama, Colombia and South Korea -- agreements that have been in the works for years. Republicans support the deals, as does President Obama, but the GOP today blasted Democrats for trying to attach extra spending to the agreements to help workers displaced by free trade.

Republicans are so opposed to the extra spending, they decided to skip today's hearing in order to stall the agreements. Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, calling negotiations with the other party "noxious," said that Democrats purposefully scheduled the hearing for this afternoon, when they knew several senators would already be out of town for July 4th.

He called it a "rush job" to jam the agreements through along with the extra spending, so the administration could "appease its political allies."

Republican Sen. John Thune of South Dakota said the free trade agreements should be "slam dunks."

"To leave something like this sitting around for four years that would create jobs... and help us expand and grow the economy, it is inexcusable," he said. The "free trade agreements are being hijacked in order to get spending the administration wants."

President Obama agrees the agreements will help create jobs, but Democrats also want to extend extra spending, first passed in the 2009 stimulus package, for the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program. Just two days ago, Democrats and Republicans appeared ready to move forward on the agreements.

Meanwhile, Speaker Boehner's not on board at all:

We’re pleased the President may finally send us the three job-creating trade agreements we’ve requested. But we have long said that TAA – even this scaled-back version – should be dealt with separately from the trade agreements, and that is how we expect to proceed.

Sweet.  So we now have a stalemate - an utterly predictable, and totally unnecessary stalemate.  As they've said all along, the House and Senate GOP leaders won't budge on a joint TAA/FTA package, and the President apparently values TAA so freakin' much that he's willing to hatch the rube-goldbergian scheme outlined above to ensure its passage.  Of course, three economically beneficial US trade agreements - the only things that Republicans and Democrats both actually want - have been put gravely at risk.  But what else did the administration expect with such a convoluted plan?  There was bound to be a hiccup or three.

Now, politically, this is a win-win situation for the President.  If TAA/FTA passes (and it still might), Obama gets a big, fat win over the GOP, the FTAs and mega-TAA.  (Budget deficit, schmudget deficit!).  If the whole thing collapses, he gets plaudits from anti-trade American labor unions and a likely boost to his sagging re-election campaign.  (Sure, American consumers and exporters, and the US economy more broadly, will be screwed, but whatever, man, the campaign coffers will be chock full!)

In this purely cynical sense, the administration's scheme is quite smart.  But from any other vantage point, particularly one that most values the FTAs' actual implementation, this is absolute madness.

You know, for someone who really, really wants these trade agreements to pass, and who singularly controls their fate, President Obama sure has a weird way of showing it.

UPDATE: Highly entertaining video of angry GOP Senator here.

Green Disputes on the WTO's Horizon

Over the last year or so , I've frequently expressed concern about the potential for increasing trade frictions over green protectionism, i.e., anti-trade measures couched in allegedly environmental terms.  ICTSD reports that the WTO will soon adjudicate two new green trade disputes which could have pretty significant ramifications (emphasis mine):

Environmental issues featured prominently in last week’s meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), as members deferred Japan’s first request for a panel on the Canadian province of Ontario’s green energy plan, while granting the Ukraine’s request for a panel to adjudicate its dispute with Moldova on discriminatory “environmental charges.”...

Ontario’s feed-in tariff (FIT) programme for renewable energy has been an area of contention between Ottawa and Tokyo since last autumn. Under the FIT programme, Ontario supports the generation of green energy by guaranteeing electricity purchase prices, grid access, and long-term contracts to renewable energy producers thus limiting their risks and supporting needed investments. Around 75 similar programmes are currently in place worldwide.

However, it was not the FIT programme itself but a local content provision within the programme that landed Canada at the WTO. To receive FIT support, renewable energy producers must ensure that a certain percentage of the goods and services used for setting up the facility comes from Ontario. This can be as high as 60 percent. Japan alleges that the measure violates the national treatment provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMS).

Tokyo also claims that the local content requirement makes the FIT a “prohibited subsidy,” under the terms of the WTO’s Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement....

The Japan Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, in a 1 June press release on the dispute, cited concern over the “possible proliferation of such protectionist measures all over the world” as their motivation for seeking the WTO’s assistance on this matter. They noted that their consultations with Canada in October did not provide them with the intended result, given that Canada “raised a local content requirement from 50 percent to 60 percent on 1 January 2011.”...

The DSB established a panel for a dispute between Moldova and Ukraine this Friday; Ukraine had issued its initial panel request on 24 May, which Moldova blocked (see Bridges Weekly, 1 June 2011).

The Ukraine case stems from a 1998 Moldovan law that allows Moldova to apply charges to imports whose use contaminates the environment, in addition to other duties or taxes. The fee ranges from 0.5 to 5 percent of the customs value of those products.

Like the Canada - Renewables case, national treatment also plays a significant role in the Moldova - Environmental Charges dispute. Ukraine alleges that Moldova’s actions are in violation of the WTO’s General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994, by not charging the same fees to like domestic products.

Ukraine also claims that Moldova charges importers an environmental fee for plastic or “tetra-pack” packages containing imported goods, without applying the same charge to like domestic goods.

The Ukraine case could provide an indication as to how a WTO panel might resolve a dispute over highly controversial "carbon tariffs," which would in theory apply to imported products based on the carbon-intensity of their production process.  As you'll recall, both the US and EU have flirted with the idea of imposing carbon tariffs as part of their broader climate change mitigation policies, while developing countries like China and India have promised to immediately challenge such measures at the WTO.

Both cases will definitely be worth watching.

Testimony Begins Tomorrow In Comstock Wrongful Death Lawsuit:

-

Rolland Comstock

Nearly four years after he was found murdered on the kitchen floor of his Greene County mansion family members of Rolland Comstock will face each other in court....on opposite sides of the aisle.

On July 3, 2007, Comstock's assistant, Becky Frakes, became concerned when she couldn't reach the former State Representative on his cell phone after getting a continual busy signal on the house phone so she headed out to his house in northern Greene County.
-
To gain access to the mansion, which is surrounded by dense woods and a wrought iron fence, you had to know the code that opened the gates and get out and remove chains that secured the gate, to the property near McDaiel Lake
-

When Frakes entered the house she found her friend and mentor dead from multiple gunshot wounds on the floor near the kitchen - his pet hybrid wolves were nearby howling in agony.

Investigators say it doesn't appear that burglary or theft were the motive in the book fanatics murder as no books were found to be missing after they searched Comstock's unique cataloguing system. There also appeared to be no signs of forced entry to the house.

A civil jury will begin to hear testimony tomorrow (06-28-11) in the wrongful death lawsuit that Rolland's adopted daughter, Faith Stocker, has brought against her mother Alberta Comstock for murder of the respected attorney and renowned book collector.
-
Rolland and Alberta Comstock were divorced in 2005 after thirty eight years of marriage and were involved in a bitter dispute over a $215,000 settlement Rolland Comstock was to pay his former wife. An extended family member has said that Alberta Comstock was upset that her ex-husband's gay lover "was living her life and she was mad as hell."

Photo of Rolland Comstock's beloved home library

-
In court documents filed eleven months after Comstock's death, search warrants revealed that detectives were interested in two family members in connection to the 70 year-old mans murder.....his ex-wife and son.
-
Alberta and Michael Comstock told authorities that it had been several years since they had been inside the mansion. However, investigators say that DNA from a cigarette butt recovered at the crime scene belongs to, Michael "Andy" Comstock, the estranged son Rolland adopted early in his marriage to Alberta.

The return of the search warrant also reveals that confidential legal paperwork from Alberta's attorney pertaining to her divorce from Comstock, as well as a health directive that was drawn up after the couples divorce, were found inside a black satchel inside the mansion.

Court filings also reveal that Alberta Comstock, who tested positive for gun shot residue on her hands the day after Comstock's murder, bought a handgun near her home in Fairland, Oklahoma the day before her ex-husbands death.

Bullet casings recovered from the crime scene were sent to the crime lab to be analyzed to determine if they were fired from the recently purchased weapon.


A convenience store employee in Monett told detectives that Alberta Comstock she remembers seeing Alberta Comstock's truck parked there the night of Rolland Comstock's murder.
-
About this time last year Greene County Sheriff Jim Arnott told the Ozarks Sentinel that this case was far from cold. "We have a full time investigator working on the case...were not ready to bring it to a close yet, but we are still working on it," he said at the time.

I have asked authorities and prosecutors if they are waiting to see how the civil case plays out before they make any arrests. Arnott said, "When we have the evidence for an arrest we'll make it."




-
In May of 2009 Comstock House was sold for about $400,000 -- it failed to ganer a single bid at an auction in June of 2008.

The sweeping lawn leading to the home that Comstock so loved is now brown and not tended to, and the prominent concrete slab set in stone that let visitors know they were on the grounds of Comstock House is now just a memory, like that of Rolland Comstock.
-
A grand jury convened last October at the request of former prosecutor Darell Moore looked at the Comstock case.  There were no inidictments issued at the conclusion of the grand jury in May of this year.
-
There still have been no criminal charges filed against anyone in connection to Comstock's murder.

Sunday Quick Hits

Here's a whole lot of links to get your week started off right:

• The Economist asks whether we're seeing the end of China's dominance as the world's low-cost manufacturer of first resort.

• J.E. Dyer absolutely dismantles labor lawyer Thomas Goeghegan's lame defense of NLRB's indefensible attempt to stop Boeing from opening a new manufacturing facility in South Carolina.

• GMU's Russ Roberts beautifully explains why President Obama's silly comments about ATMs taking American jobs are so darn silly.  (And Cato's Andrew Coulson piles on.)

• The AFL-CIO's use of a 13-year old photo in its latest anti-Colombia FTA smear campaign is the perfect metaphor for its trade policy more broadly - stuck in the past.  Meanwhile, Colombia hits yet another labor benchmark that was supposed to ensure passage of its FTA with the United States.  Key words: supposed to.

• AEI's Phil Levy provides a great roadmap showing how we got into the current mess re: Trade Adjustment Assistance and how we can get out of it.

• And while TAA gums up passage of pending US FTAs, our potential FTA partners in South Korea and Colombia are lining up another, rather conspicuous suitor - China.  Awesome.

• And the TAA/FTA impasse also has infected [$] ongoing US trade negotiations under the Trans-Pacific Partnership.  Double-awesome.

• AEI's Mark Perry highlights the amazing gains in US worker productivity in our allegedly struggling manufacturing sector.

• Cato's Dan Griswold shows how IBM's remarkable evolution is a perfect metaphor for the US economy.

• Is America's stupid ethanol policy on the way out the door?  If this recent Senate vote is any indication (and it might not be), yes.

• Cafe Hayek's Don Boudreuax provides some great commentary on the House's vote to cut off those embarrassing US bribes to Brazilian cotton farmers.  John Stossel has more.  (And Brazil unsurprisingly grumbles about it all.)

• Can we please, PLEASE stop labeling free traders who support practical limits on US foreign policy adventurism "isolationists"?

• Mark Perry and Dan Griswold team up to explain how people's blinkered obsession with the US trade deficit misses the other, inevitable side of the coin, our massive foreign investment surplus:

If these don't leave you sufficiently depressed about US trade policy, then nothing will. 

More Commentary on the GOP Presidential Candidates, Trade and US Manufacturing Jobs

Last week I blogged on the GOP presidential debate in New Hampshire and the candidates' responses to a basic question on the decline of US manufacturing jobs.  Since then, several smart people have weighed in on the issue.  First, WorldTradeLaw.net's Simon Lester pointed out in the comments to my original post that Governor Pawlenty certainly isn't the only one who's been blaming trade for job losses:

Check this out from Romney the other day:

VAN SUSTEREN: The IMF is predicting that China's economy is going to surpass our own in the year 2016. First of all, how does -- what does that mean to us? What does that mean to the average American? How do we feel that? And secondly, why is China able to surpass us?

ROMNEY: China is able to surpass us in part because over last couple of decades, American policy has been so relaxed towards China. We've allowed them to manipulate their currency to make our products more expensive than theirs. And that has allowed them to come into our country and replace a lot of jobs in this country. …

We, frankly, have been turning a blind eye to China's policies with regards to our economy for far too long, and America has to get serious about saying, We want to make America the most attractive place for business in the world, not China. And the consequence of not doing that would be potentially seeing our standard of living decline and over time, seeing China build a military that could rival any in the world.

VAN SUSTEREN: How do we actually, though, turn that around? China is our bank. We owe them, you know -- you know, so much money that it's almost breathtaking. They hold more of our debt than any other nation. You know, what do we actually do to sort of turn that around so that they don't take our jobs, so that our dollars aren't going there to get their cheaper goods?

ROMNEY: ….
… you have to make it very clear that to trade with America on the most favored basis that you have to honor our laws. You have to allow your currency to float. You have to make sure that the products that come into the U.S. have not been, if you will, pirated through technology that's been stolen by various companies in China. We're going to have to be serious with China about enforcing our laws, enforcing agreements that are fair and free and not giving them the kind of free ride that they've had so far.

I'd argue that Romney's response isn't as bad as Pawlenty's comments in New Hampshire, but still, it's a good catch by Simon and, well... ugh.

Next, Dan Drezner expressed similar concerns about what was said - and not said - at the GOP debate:

In presidential campaigns, this amounts to "don't expect to see any new trade deals anytime soon." As for the other dimensions of globalization, well, peruse the section on immigration provided you have a green card if you dare. No one said anything about the positive economic and demographic benefits America receives from immigration.

The other thing that was striking was what wasn't said during the debate. All of the candidates focused like sharks with frikkin' laser beams attached to them on the economy. The standard GOP litany of solutions for jump-starting the economy were offered: tax cuts, cutting regulation, tax cuts, cutting government spending, tax cuts, reigning in the Fed, tax cuts, ending Obamacare, tax cuts. Not one of the candidates, however, mentioned trade liberalization as part of their fornmula for getting America moving again.

To be fair, this isn't as bad as when Obama and Clinton were debating over who would eviscerate NAFTA faster in 2008 (and funny, isn't it, how that never happened). And it's not like I was a huge fan of Obama's trade policy. To be just as fair, howeever, at least the current president completed KORUS negotiations and signaled strong interest in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I get the sense that no one in the GOP field is going to stick their neck out on international trade or investment. For the party that claims to be in favor of lower taxes and regulation, this is a travesty.

I commented on Dan's post when it was published, and I always refuse to admit I'm wrongtry to be consistent, so just I'll be lazy and just repeat my instant analysis here:

I think you're right to be concerned about Pawlenty's statements and the other GOP candidates' silence in the NH debate (hence, why I blogged about it).

However, I think you got two things sorta-wrong here:

(1) I wouldn't oversell the NH debate too much, especially as a forecast for any future GOP president's support for new FTAs or trade more generally. Almost all (if not all) of the candidates have come out in support of the pending FTAs with Korea, Colombia and Panama - even Pawlenty did so in his big economic speech at the UChicago last week. And a few have been even bolder (check the Club for Growth's reports on each candidate for a full rundown). Moreover, recall that a large majority (about 80%) of GOP House freshman (incl. lots of Tea Partiers) recently wrote a letter calling for passage of the pending FTAs. So the GOP still - it seems - supports free trade, with the usual mercantilist, "get tough" caveats (unfortunately).

(2) I think you're too optimistic about this President's "support" for free trade. First, he sat on the 3 FTAs for 2+ years and only began to consider moving them thru Congress after watering them down (raising tariffs, onerous labor and tax provisions, etc.) to appease Big Labor. Even now, he's holding the agreements hostage until the GOP relents on the bloated TAA expansion that was rammed thru as part of the Stimulus* Bill - another sop to labor, btw. Second, his big "push" for TPP has produced a lot of soundbites but very little substance, and seriously risks failure now that they've moved off their November 2011 deadline for a deal. Finally, Doha is - at best - comatose and more likely dead, and a big part of the blame must rest on the administration's refusal to submit an agressive offer on farm subsidies and industrial market access (coupled with pretty crazy demands on developing countries' participation in voluntary, plurilateral agreements).

Given these two things, I think it's very safe to say that a Republican president would be a pretty big step up from the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Of course, none of this changes your primary message - that GOP contenders who embrace snake-oil protectionism are betraying their fiscally conservative message, and that voters should be wary of these charlatans.

Next, AEI's Phil Levy did an excellent job elaborating on some of the problems that Dan, Simon and I noted with respect to the GOP candidates, trade and US manufacturing jobs, and he then throws down the gauntlet:

What are the early prospects for Republican presidential leadership on trade? Dan Drezner and Scott Lincicome last week took Gov. Tim Pawlenty to task for his debate remarks on the topic. Pawlenty espoused "fair trade" and increased enforcement as the primary response to the country's manufacturing employment woes....

[T]allying up each party's merits and demerits on trade is a distraction from the more important point. We know from two years of experience that President Obama is inclined, at best, to "lead from behind" on trade. At a time when global trade talks are engaged in a prolonged and dramatic death scene and U.S. foreign relations increasingly hinge on the ability to cement commercial ties, there is a desperate need for leadership of the sort that can only come from the White House. Dan and Scott are right to scrutinize the Republican candidates and see whether any of them might provide it.

There is a temptation to excuse statements like Pawlenty's. After all, in his call for "fair and open trade," he was hardly embracing protectionism. Fair trade is the sort of elastic term that means different things to different groups, but seems to poll well with all of them. Isn't this just smart politics on Pawlenty's part? Why should Republicans cede enforcement fervor and the embrace of fairness to the Democrats? This could be cast as the equivalent of a pro-motherhood, pro-apple pie platform.

Such temptation should be resisted. It is misleading to tell Americans that the prime cause of manufacturing job loss lies with imports. This offers the false hope that very real employment problems can be fixed with judicious application of trade barriers. As with any snake oil, there is the dual danger that the potion will not work and that reliance on the false cure will preclude a search for a true remedy. One of the great challenges that any American leader will face in coming years is how to structure the social safety net to meet a job market that is far more dynamic than in times past, one in which Americans will change both employers and perhaps their type of employment with greater frequency than ever before. Trade is one driver of this dynamism, but technological change and domestic competition are at least as important, likely more. Any candidate who misses the broader challenge and misattributes the problem to foreign cheating is not just pandering; they are failing to engage on a central economic issue and missing an opportunity to win a mandate for a much-needed policy response.

There has been an intriguing battle among Republican candidates, in the wake of Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels's withdrawal from consideration, to claim the role of Teller of Difficult Truths. The first skirmishes have come over ethanol subsidies, which some candidates -- including Pawlenty -- have dared to oppose (though John Dickerson has questioned just how brave this stance really is). Trade offers the candidates another such opportunity. It may be too soon to render final judgment, but it will be telling to see which candidates use the opportunity to offer a vision for American engagement in modern commerce and which opt to pander to easy prejudices.

Great stuff, as usual, by Phil.

Finally, EconLog's David Henderson provides, in my opinion, the best response that a presidential candidate could give on American manufacturing jobs:

It's unlikely that we'll have more manufacturing jobs. The story of economic progress is one of doing more with less. This has been especially true in U.S. manufacturing, where the value of manufacturing, in inflation-adjusted terms, reached an all-time high before our current recession. And while that has happened, we've had fewer and fewer people becoming more and more productive. Moreover, every major manufacturing economy, including China's, has lost manufacturing jobs.

He then adds:

Manufacturing employment declined from the mid-1990s to 2002 in a number of countries whose economies are rapidly developing, including China, Brazil, and South Korea. In fact, China, Brazil, South Korea, and Japan had steeper percentage declines in manufacturing employment over that period than the United States.

This is from Economic Report of the President, 2004, p. 76.

So who's gonna step up and tell the American people these "hard truths"?

Behold, the Insane (and Possibly Illegal) Bi-partisan FTA Deal!

As you may have heard, the White House and congressional Republicans are currently battling behind closed doors over a way forward for the pending US free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea.  National Journal [$] reports on the latest developments (emphasis mine):

House Republicans retreated from their plan to begin preliminary markup on the pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, but the public stalling may signal that negotiators are making better progress behind closed doors.

Several people involved in the talks said on Monday that weekend negotiations over Trade Adjustment Assistance moved the parties closer to a deal. The White House has made clear that it wants Congress to reach a deal on TAA before beginning the markup process on the bills.

A House Republican aide said that preliminary hearings, expected to get under way this week, have not been scheduled. The move could pave the way for a deal to be announced before markups begin.

An aide to Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, said in an e-mail: “While no date has been set for the mock-markups, we remain optimistic that a bipartisan solution will soon be reached.”

Some stakeholders said that the biggest sticking point has been finding enough revenue to offset the cost of the program extension. The White House originally pushed for extending a version of the worker retraining funds that was expanded in 2009 to include service employees and health care. But it appears that the deal will be significantly scaled back....

Lawmakers from both chambers have floated a wide range of frameworks in recent weeks. The chief concern has been raising enough revenue to counteract the cost of TAA and tariffs that will expire when the deals come into force.

Several of the parties involved said that a large portion of the pay-fors could come from additional customs fees, although that money would be insufficient to cover the full cost of the package. But the revenue gap may not be insurmountable....

The negotiated agreement on the trade deals may be sufficient to gain the bipartisan support needed to advance a comprehensive package before August, but it may not be enough to win the backing of skeptical Democrats in the House. Once the deals are introduced, they will need only a simple majority to pass in both chambers.

For a moment, let's ignore the fact that these agreements have been completed and signed for about four years, and that the President alone has the power to submit the FTAs for congressional consideration and approval (a simple majority vote in both chambers without amendment and pursuant to strict timelines), and that the three agreements would undoubtedly pass the House and Senate all by themselves.

And let's ignore the fact that the TAA program, in whatever form, has proven itself to be costly, ineffectual (politically and practically) and economically unjustifiable, and that, because he also really wants these FTAs to be implemented, the President is in effect holding a hostage that he's not willing to shoot.

And let's ignore the fact that, even with an eventual deal on the TAA bribe subsidy, most House Democrats (and many Senate Dems too) will never, ever, EVER support these FTAs (as the article makes clear and the Senators themselves have admitted).

Instead, for a moment, let's just focus on the big bi-partisan agreement outlined above.  Why on earth is this "breakthrough deal" even being considered?

First, it's absolutely irrational.  As noted, the parties have reportedly agreed to impose new (or higher) "Customs fees" in order to offset the cost of the TAA subsidy and the lost tariff revenue resulting from the FTAs implementation.  But "customs fees" are simply hidden taxes on import consumers.  A quick review of the US Customs website on "customs users fees" makes this clear.  They're paid (mainly) by commercial transporters bringing goods (imports) into the United States, thus raising the costs of importation.  And those higher costs, of course, are eventually passed on to American consumers through higher import prices.

Thus, pursuant to the bi-partisan deal outlined above, the FTAs' great import liberalization benefits will be immediately and tangibly undermined by new taxes on those very same imports (and others)!  Amazing.  Heaven forbid that Congress fill the tariff gap created by the FTAs and pay for TAA by actually eliminating federal spending on, oh I don't know, one of its absolutely-critical research programs into cow farts or cocaine-using monkeys.  Nope, the Obama administration's (and some congressional Republicans') big plan is to offset the elimination of taxes on import consumers by... wait for it... raising taxes on import consumers.  (It's truly a mercantilist's dream come true!)  Even worse, those new taxes will be necessarily be much larger than the amount of the FTA tax cut because they also have to fund a politically and economically dubious subsidy program that isn't even guaranteed to buy the approval of the FTAs' current congressional opposition!

Only in Washington, folks.  Only in Washington.

Unfortunately, it gets even worse: the big plan might also be illegal under global trade rules.  Granted, the description above is way too ambiguous to make any definitive conclusions about the deal's legality, but assuming that the agreement would raise US customs users fees (or implement new ones) in order to generate revenue for the federal government, it would probably violate GATT Article VIII, which governs WTO Members' imposition of "Fees and Formalities connected with Importation and Exportation" (in other words, customs fees).  The key provision of Article VIII reads:

1.(a) All fees and charges of whatever character (other than import and export duties and other than taxes within the purview of Article III) imposed by contracting parties on or in connection with importation or exportation shall be limited in amount to the approximate cost of services rendered and shall not represent an indirect protection to domestic products or a taxation of imports or exports for fiscal purposes.

WTO panels have interpreted this provision narrowly, and an old GATT panel has actually looked into the US system of customs users fees.  In these cases, the panels have ruled that Article VIII's requirement that a customs fee be "limited in amount to the approximate cost of services rendered" is actually a "dual requirement," because the charge in question must first involve a "service" rendered, and then the level of the charge must not exceed the approximate cost of that "service."  They've also found that the term "services rendered" means "services rendered to the individual importer in question," and that the fees cannot be imposed to raise revenue (i.e., for "fiscal purposes").

Interestingly, a relatively recent Customs Department notice about an increase in the amount of applicable customs users fees makes clear that the US government's customs fees are intended to approximate the costs of customs services (e.g., inspection) actually rendered (emphasis mine):

On October 22, 2004 the President signed the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-357). Section 892 of the Act amended Title 19 United States Code 58c to renew the fees provided under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), which would have otherwise expired March 1, 2005, and to allow the Secretary of the Treasury to increase such fees by an amount not to exceed 10 percent in the period beginning fiscal year 2006 through the period for which the fees are authorized by law....

CBP is increasing the fees by the amounts authorized so that they more accurately reflect the actual costs of providing the services for which they are charged. On April 24, 2006, CBP published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register (71 FR 20922) proposing to amend the regulations in accordance with the current statutory provisions by increasing the fees for: (1) customs services provided in connection with the arrival of certain commercial vessels, commercial trucks, railroad cars, private aircraft and private vessels, passengers aboard commercial aircraft and commercial vessels, and barges or other bulk carrier arrivals, (2) each item of dutiable mail for which a customs officer prepares documentation, and (3) annual customs brokers permits.

But now, the US government specifically and expressly intends to raise these fees (and/or others) in order to fund TAA and offset lost tariff revenue on imports from Korea, Colombia and Panama - absolutely nothing to do with the "actual costs of providing the services for which they are charged" or, in WTO parlance, the "the approximate cost of services rendered."  So, even assuming that this plan doesn't run afoul of more general WTO non-discrimination provisions by singling out certain countries, how is the deal even remotely WTO-consistent under the most conservative reading of GATT Article VIII?

I honestly have no idea.

But, hey, even assuming the plan isn't illegal, that doesn't change the fact that it's clearly insane.  So it's got that going for it, which is nice.

Could someone again please remind me how we got into this mess?

The Yuan Might Not Be As Undervalued as You (or even I) Think

When American politicians (and reality TV stars) start railing against China's "undervalued" currency, they're always talking about the nominal exchange rate - i.e., the rate that governments and banks say the currencies are worth - between the Chinese yuan (or RMB) and the US dollar.  I've repeatedly noted how misguided this approach is for international trade discussions because nominal rates don't actually tell you what goods and services - you know, the things we're trading - are actually worth.  That's what real exchange rates do, and in those terms, China's currency has appreciated dramatically against the dollar over the last few years.

Economist Ed Dolan (h/t Lee Miller) provides some interesting new analysis showing that even I may have been understating the Yuan's real value and, hence, its recent appreciation versus the dollar (insert lawyer-math joke here):

The final item on the scorecard, in many ways the most important, is the real exchange rate as deflated not by consumer prices, but by unit labor costs. Unit labor costs measure the cost of producing goods taking into account both increases in wages, which tend to raise costs, and increases in productivity, which tend to lower them. If a country’s unit labor costs rise relative to those of its trading partners, its exports become less competitive, equivalent to a real appreciation of the currency. In the United States, the unit labor cost series published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics has fallen over the past year by about 4 percent because strong productivity growth has outpaced stagnant nominal wages. China does not publish a comparable series, but there are strong indications that its unit labor costs are rising. Wage settlements with individual employers in export industries and minimum wage increases announced for important manufacturing centers have been rising at rates far in excess of inflation, often 10 to 20 percent. Productivity is presumably rising, too, but surely not that rapidly. A conservative, back-of-the-envelope guess for the rate of increase of Chinese unit labor costs would be about 5 percent per year. It could be more. If so, that would suggest a ULC-deflated rate of real appreciation of about 14 percent per year bilaterally against the dollar. The ULC-deflated Chinese REER is presumably also appreciating significantly faster than the BIS [nominal] figure of 3 percent or so.

In short, China's goods and services are appreciating 14 percent annually versus American goods and services.  Wow.  Dolan's whole piece is definitely worth reading (although I disagree with his final conclusions about the effect of Yuan appreciation on the US economy).  Assuming his calculations are even remotely correct (and considering his background, I have no reason to doubt him), Dolan's analysis provides even further proof that US currency hawks simply have no idea what they're talking about.

(But we already knew that, didn't we?)

Happy Fathers' Day, everyone.

Free Trade Helps America's Poor. Full Stop.

One of the themes of this blog is how unilateral elimination of US import tariffs disproportionately helps lower income Americans who have to spend a larger share of their paychecks on necessities like food, clothing and footwear.  Now comes a new study from Ed Gresser at ProgressiveEconomy (yes, you read that right: progressive) which provides further empirical evidence of this indisputable fact.  Reuters has the write-up:

The United States should eliminate most, if not all, of its remaining taxes on imported goods to give low-income consumers extra spending cash, a new report recommended on Tuesday....

The United States collected about $26 billion in tariffs on about $1.9 trillion of imports in 2010, suggesting an average tariff rate of only 1.3 percent.

But in fact, tariffs on individual items vary dramatically, with goods most likely bought by the poor frequently hit with the highest rates, the report said.

Sneakers with a wholesale price of less than $3 have a 48 percent duty, while leather dress shoes only 8.5 percent. The duty on a polyester bra is 16.9 percent but just 2.7 percent on a silk one. A canvas bag faces a 16 percent tariff, but one made from snakeskin 5.3 percent.

Gresser, who worked previously for Senator Max Baucus and the U.S. Trade Representative's office, estimated about two-thirds of U.S. import duties are collected on home goods such as clothes, shoes, towels, pillowcases, luggage, handbags, silverware, plates and drinking glasses. Many of those items are no longer made in the United States.

"Tax analysts know very well that any tax on home goods will be regressive. This is because wealthy families spend the smallest share of their income on home goods, while low-income families -- especially if they have children -- spend the most," Gresser said.

Import taxes are often defended as necessary to protect to American jobs, but falling U.S. employment in high-tariff industries such as clothes, shoes, luggage and linens suggest they have been ineffective at that.

Some 1.34 million Americans worked for clothing manufacturers in 1970, but 40 years later only about 160,000 still do. The U.S. shoe industry has shrunk from 230,000 workers to 1,000 over the past four decades.

The full report, The Rebirth of Pro-Shopper Populism, is available here.  The whole thing is worth reading, but here are my two favorite tables.  The first one shows how our tariffs currently discriminate against low-end consumables (and, of course, the people who buy them).

The second one shows the obscene regressivity of US tariffs:

So a single mom has to work 2.6 times as long as a wealthier person/family to pay off their share of annual import taxes.  Unreal.

Seriously, how on earth are these tariffs still in place?  To line the pockets of a few well-connected US companies and their workers?  Because other countries refuse to similarly help their poorest citizens?

Gimme a break.

Truly great stuff from Gresser and his team.  Now, if only they could convince their fellow Democrats - an increasing majority of whom have abandoned their party's long tradition of support for free trade - of the wisdom of tariff liberalization.

Sadly, I'm not holding my breath.

Protectionists Must Have Nightmares about the iPod

From Mark Perry comes even more proof that the iPod is a protectionist's worst nightmare.  I've already documented the growing number of iPod (and iPhone) studies which show that the modern global economy isn't, as our President and many other politicians claim, some sort of ruthless, zero-sum, "us versus them" competition among nations.  (Think Thunderdome without the bungee cords.)  The earlier "iPod studies" analyzed the iPod's and iPhone's global design and manufacturing processes and showed how, even though the gadgets say "Made in China," it's America, not China, that gets most of the profits from their sale.  The studies thereby demonstrated how modern global supply chains (i) have turned bilateral trade statistics into worthless measures of trade policy and (ii) can provide huge benefits for Americans beyond the obvious cost savings, even when the product at issue is wholly assembled abroad.

Now comes a new study published in the Journal of International Commerce and Economics which shows the dramatic benefits that the iPod's global manufacturing process - and American innovation more generally - deliver to the American workforce.  The abstract gives the study's basics:

Globalization skeptics argue that the benefits of globalization, such as lower consumer prices, are outweighed by job losses, lower earnings for U.S. workers, and a potential loss of technology to foreign rivals. To shed light on the jobs issue, we analyze the iPod, which is manufactured offshore using mostly foreign-made components. In terms of headcount, we estimate that, in 2006, the iPod supported nearly twice as many jobs offshore (27,250, see chart above) as in the United States (13,920). Yet the total wages paid in the United States ($746 million, see chart above) amounted to more than twice as much as those paid overseas ($318 million). Driving this result is the fact that Apple keeps most of its research and development (R&D) and corporate support functions in the United States, providing thousands of high-paid professional and engineering jobs that can be attributed to the success of the iPod. This case provides evidence that innovation by a U.S. company at the head of a global value chain can benefit both the company and U.S. workers.

Cool.  Perry also provides a great table to demonstrate the authors' topline data point:

The study's authors then conclude:

When innovative products are designed and marketed by U.S. companies, they can create valuable jobs for American workers even if the products are manufactured offshore. Apple’s tremendous success with the iPod and other innovative products in recent years has driven growth in U.S. employment, even though these products are made offshore. These jobs pay well and employ people with college degrees. They are at the high end of what might be considered middle class jobs and appear to be less at risk of vanishing from the United States than production jobs.

In short, even when an American-designed product is made overseas, it can - and often does - support tens of thousands of American jobs at pretty great pay.  And, oh, yeah, other countries benefit too.  Very, very cool.

So much for that ruthless competition, eh?

p.s. For those of you who might claim that we could have even more jobs if we lobbied the US government to force Apple to produce and assemble their gadgets in the United States, you'd be wrong: the devices would necessarily cost more to produce - maybe a lot more.  Thus, these "American iPods" would, at best, result in fewer sales and fewer support jobs (and R&D into new, supercool Apple stuff), and, at worst, they wouldn't exist at all when priced entirely out of the market.

Is Tim Pawlenty Gunning to Be the GOP's Protectionist Candidate in 2012?

Last week, I lamented that GOP Presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty's mercantilist statements on free trade were somewhat contradictory and really mundane.  His latest statements on trade, however, are more troubling and have him increasingly looking like the GOP's protectionist for 2012 (there's always at least one).

If you were (sane) like me, you didn't spend last night glued to CNN to watch the GOP Presidential Debate in New Hampshire.  But a quick search of the debate transcript (yes, I know, I need to rescind my previous allegation of sanity) reveals that the only comments on trade came from Pawlenty in response to a question on how the candidates "plan on returning manufacturing jobs to the United States":

PAWLENTY: There's a number of things we need to do. Restore manufacturing in this country. And I grew up if in a meat packing town. I grew up in a manufacturing town. I was in a union for six or seven years.

I understand what it's like to see the blue-collar communities and the struggles that they've had when manufacturing leaves. So I've seen that firsthand. But number one, we've got to have fair trade, and what's going on right now is not fair.


I'm for a fair and open trade but I'm not for being stupid and I'm not for being a chump. And we have individuals and organizations and countries around this world who are not following the rules when it comes to fair trade. We need a stronger president and somebody who's going to take on those issues.

Sigh.  I've already dismantled the "fair trade" and "everybody cheats" myths several times on this blog, so I won't do so again here.  And, frankly, Pawlenty's statements here are almost identical to the tough-guy chest-thumping that he's done in the past about free trade (as I noted last week), so his statements last night, while underwhelming, aren't really that disturbing or noteworthy.

What is disturbing and noteworthy, however, is that Pawlenty, when asked about manufacturing job losses, immediately resorted to scapegoating free trade as the primary driver of those losses.  And, by the way, he was the only GOP hopeful to do so.  Ron Paul (unsurprisingly) targeted US monetary policy; Michele Bachmann (quite rightly) attacked onerous US tax and regulatory policies; Rick Santorum also took a swipe at tax policy.  None of them blamed trade policy for manufacturing job losses.

Except Governor Pawlenty.

Of course, this stance is utter poppycock:  not only are most American manufacturing job losses the result of things like technology gains and changing consumer tastes, but they also have been happening for decades and are in no way unique to the United States.  Moreover, a lot of American manufacturers depend on trade (imports and exports) in order to remain globally competitive and/or to find new customers abroad.  So, if anything, our politicians should cite free trade policy as a solution to, not cause of, US industrial job-losses.  Thus, it's quite troubling that, when asked about those job losses, Tim Pawlenty's first thought was to blame trade - a strategy, by the way, that's right out of the protectionist playbook.  The unions do it; pandering Democratic politicians do it; and the professional anti-traders do it.

So why is a GOP presidential candidate - especially one who just recently championed free market fiscal policies that directly contradict such an anti-trade stance - doing it too?

I honestly have no idea.

Fortunately for Pawlenty, his trade statements received big praise from one pundit.  Unfortunately, it was MSNBC's Ed Schultz (start at the 3:30 mark):

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Err, congrats Governor.