Not because of smoggy marine-layer haze---one of the world's largest ports is at Dead Slow, almost Full Stop.

I was first here in 1986, and was amazed at the immense fixed cranes for off-loading, which were so large that a container ship simply pulled inside one. Ships typically stacked up outside the harbor, waiting their turn. But as my airplane from Tokyo approached the airport I looked down at nearly empty highways. It was quieter than New Year's day morning, and the expected 90-min. bus ride to our hotel took 40 minutes.

A tour guide chatted on the bus PA, emphasizing the shopping opportunities, and finishing up by encouraging us to help their economy. He was perhaps not clear that we were there to earn, not spend. A forgivable mistake, when US tourists expected bargains and came prepared to buy, in all the good times leading up to now. But I saw a story in the newspaper here that listed the reduction in value of several billionaires' holdings, such as the Kwok family, down from US $ 23 billion in 2008, to only $ 10.9 billion now. Quelle dommage!

I am reminded that the entire world of trade is suspended, not only the US. But is there a cause? Is there something all of us are doing wrong, or rather, is there something we should do that is different? Is it just the boom-and-bust cycle?

The biggest dispute here might be spending vs. tax cuts, but the protection fight is beginning to dominate, which we saw coming. It is of a piece with the populist revolt, which follows the public ridicule of formerly worshipped Wall Street titans. Arguments swing back and forth about the damage caused by Smoot-Hawley in 1930 and on. I wonder about a deeper question, not Obama's "is perfect an enemy of good?", but "is perfect better than good in the first place?"

Most arguments in favor of free trade point to resulting efficiencies, which lead to lower purchase prices for us. Not persuasive if it inherently lowers wages here. There are some appeals to our business helping other countries, as my bus guide appealed. But why are they dependent on us?

There are several examples of the need to be imperfect, a bit inefficient, not entirely open to all inputs. There is the ship that lacks compartments, liable to sink with a small hole in it. There is the electric grid, which takes down thousands of homes when one substation melts down after a tree fall. There are animals too perfectly adapted to their niche, who become extinct as that niche vanishes. And I argue that economies should not seek the ultimate bottom-line profitability of specialization.

Don't most of us agree that cash-crop agriculture risks poverty if the weather is bad, or the  export markets dry up? Single-commodity wealth is wholly dependent on everybody else wanting your product, and you can't simply keep it and feed your country with oil, copper, coffee, etc. Diversification is always said to be sound policy in agriculture, and in investing, too. But that is inherently hedging, which means less-than-perfect efficiency.

I know that trade barriers seem old-fashioned, but I'm in an old-fashioned business, where we don't outsource our performances, we can't replace ourselves with robots, and we do it better than just about anybody, anyway. And our bodies are still the same as when modern humans left Africa, so it may be wise to slow down the rush to perfect production and consumption.

Hong Kong is where I saw more Rolls-Royces in one place than anywhere, in front of the Peninsula Hotel. Only one this time, although the skyline is still astonishing, like Times Square spread along an entire waterfront.  But a cruise ship coming in from the gambling oasis of Macau was almost empty, just a couple of people out on deck in the mild shirt-sleeve breeze.