[ALPAPilot]

By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security;

"Experience, however, shews, that the fancied or real insecurity of capital, when not under the immediate control of its owner, together with the natural disinclination which every man has to quit the country of his birth and connexions, and intrust himself with all his habits fixed, to a strange government and new laws, check the emigration of capital. These feelings, which I should be sorry to see weakened, induce most men of property to be satisfied with a low rate of profits in their own country, rather than seek a more advantageous employment for their wealth in foreign nations."

Both of your quotes buoy my argument. Adam Smith is giving the reasons that people naturally prefer domestic industry. The reason is less risk:

In the home-trade his capital is never so long out of his sight as it frequently is in the foreign trade of consumption. He can know better the character and situation of the person whom he trusts, and if he should happen to be deceived, he knows better the laws of the country from which he must seek redress.

Those things check the emigration of capital. All the regulations cited in the article are what push that capital overseas; when government creates those stumbling blocks, what choice to people have. It is the reduction of the bureaucracy, not the imposition of high tariffs that is the solution. Adam Smith makes that quite clear in the section I quoted. Those tariffs are either neutral or harmful.

It's rather like the old medical procedure of bleeding. Just when an illness strikes the Doctor is there to make matters worse.

[bigheadfred]

Right. The operation was a complete success. But the patient DIED.

[khelus]

You continue to siddle by some salient points and miss the big picture.

Corporate leaders now define themselves as citizens of the world, not of the US. They chase maximum short term profits, using the cheapest labor in conditions that lack even minimal standards regarding safety, working conditions, or passing on the costs of production through gross environmental destruction. As to risk, no problem just be 'too big to fail'.

Concentrating solely on regulation is a red herring. Corporations have no problem with regulation. They even offer their expertise and campaign contributions to both sides of the aisle to ensure that said regulations in the US squash any upcoming competition.

We currently live in a globalized market which has been rigged to the advantage of capital and management. Globalists happily traipse the globe in search of the world's cheapest labor and most lax regulation, combined with tariff free access back to the US market, to wit outsourcing to China.

To repeat, even in the absence of onerous regulation, there is no way in the world any American worker can compete with neo-slaves in China who makes $.32 / hour, i.e. unless America's standard of living devolves to that of the third world.

I notice you have neglected any comment upon China's special status as a "nonmarket economy" with special preference under the WTO administered 'Free Trade' agreements or why tariffs are okay for China but not the US. Adam Smith would agree the FReepers who would tariff goods manufactured in China.

Up until recently declining real income of the American worker under global labor arbitrage has been hidden by access to cheap credit. The hidden costs of what is termed 'Globalisation' include the growing number of Americans who are long term unemployed, who are dependent upon some part of the government's largess for survival, and whose income is plunging.