[LowCountryJoe]

This reads like a manifest from the 1700's instead of 2004.

Holy crap, the sky is falling!

This is such a great topic because it really can show just how far apart from each other that conservatives can be. The same players in here, of course, have pummeled the “outsource” horse, for quite some time. I've been trying, unsuccessfully I might add, to argue in favor of outsourcing in the hopes that someone formerly opposed would see the good in it.

The "spreading of capitalism thereby fostering foreign stability which, theoretically would lead to better national security" argument did not resonate with anyone on the opposite side of the argument. In fact, it lead to discussions about OPIC, burger flipping jobs, American standard of living decrease, 12 cent a day workers in repressed countries, etcetera.

Last night I came up with the one question to ask that might just disarm people. It's a simple "or" question that is designed to press you on the protectionist side that you take. "Or" questions can suck because they can box you in to taking a stand on a position and the questions are never really fairly asked. But I think this question is asked fairly and I'm sure that you wont will agree.

Now I already know that many of you will not take the bait on this, or you'll bring up a third, forth, or fifth scenario. Or, you'll bring up something as off topic as municipal bond issuing and city planners "giving away the farm" to business. Or, you'll complain about competition reducing jobs that are already established. Or, something else that is sure to be entertaining to read, all in an effort to duck the "outsource" question. Anyway, I hope this is as engaging as I think it's going to be.

Here's the hypothetical scenario [yes - don't you just love those]:

A few wealthy entrepreneurs from India get together and decide the want to begin manufacturing cars. Since the market for automobiles is smokin' in America, they decide that they will start manufacturing Sport Utility Vehicles in the United States to save on shipping costs and to tap into the productivity and skill of the American worker. If they can somehow grab a foothold into our market they think that their SUVs can sell. They also believe that American employees at their plant and dealerships might be encouraged to purchase the vehicles that they help bring to market. Anyhow, this group of Indian entrepreneurs wants to build a plant in the town that you live in.

So here's the question:

Some younger member of your immediate or extended family - someone that you care about very deeply - has just been offered a very well compensating job at this Indian owned SUV plant. They just received the word that they were among the chosen from a strong pool of candidates. They are very eager to tell you about it. What is your reaction?

Do you stick to your principles and decry [in my opinion wrongly] that outsourcing is bad for the Indian country's economy and that s/he should not take the well paying job because it indirectly takes away a job from someone who lives in India? [You may or may not also slam the Inian entrepreneurs for being to greedy and only caring about the bottom line.]

Or

Do you "check your principles at the door" while you congratulate she or he on landing that well paying job because, after all, this time the "outsourcing" had a direct benefit for someone that you know and care about?

[mgist]

Of course you congratulate him/her for the well paying job that allows for him/her to contibute to the economy. Pat Buchanan is nuts. He is just as extreme towards immigrants. I cringe when I hear him being called a conservative. Fear is a big motivator for some people. It really works for the Democrats. My mother-in-law recieved a letter saying she would be eating dog food if Bush were elected. Buchanan went to the same school as the folks who sent that letter.

[Glenn]

I've been trying, unsuccessfully I might add, to argue in favor of outsourcing in the hopes that someone formerly opposed would see the good in it.

Please remove me from your ping list.

[palmer]

You congratulate them on their job of course. There is no zero sum where someone will lose a job due to theirs. Where you apply your principles is when they spend the money from that job. Do they squander it on low quality imported consumables? The best example was last Christmas's cheap Chinese DVD players that shoppers stampeded for. I have no gripes with people who want to watch DVDs, but I do have a gripe with people who squander the savings from that purchase.

The free traders will give the spurious argument that the cheap DVD players raise our standard of living. They may do that, but it is temporary. It would be better for everyone including that consumer to buy one long lasting American product (e.g. shoes) than a cheap DVD player and a pair of cheap Chinese shoes, both of which will be worn out in a year.

Laugh all you want at my examples, but we are trading the family jewels for knock-off plastic trinkets.

[Robert Drobot]

You offer no rebuttal to the content of the article, because you can't. To do so might expose an exploitive trait, and that's unacceptable in polite society. After all, I'm willing to bet you are want to say you treat your substandard labor like they are one of your own.

[raybbr]

Some younger member of your immediate or extended family - someone that you care about very deeply - has just been offered a very well compensating job at this Indian owned SUV plant.

That's easy. Congratulate him on his job. At least some of his income will come back to the U.S. You see, I don't care if India, China, Mexico or Malaysia prosper. I care that the United States prospers and secures a future for my son.

All you super-capitalists can't see past the end of your next dividend check. Those of us that are against opening our trade borders can look forward and see the United States losing her domination in the world of business and economics. Once we make all the other countries in the world our equal what advantage do we have? How is wanting our country to be the dominate in trade any different than a major corporation wanting to dominate its market? I am sure sure you would extoll the virtues of any corporation putting other small companies out of business in the name of consolidation. Why shouldn't we dominate the world in trade?

[MissAmericanPie]

I suppose you pinged me for an opinion. I know, or am attempting to understand that the term "conservative" covers a broad spectrum of people with different definitions for the term. It's been hard for me to grasp because I thought the core meaning, the bases on which the word is founded, is the same for everyone, or it's no longer conservatism, but something else, watered down and weak.

In the old days, a couple of decades ago, most Conservatives identified conservatism as love of God, family, country, in that order. Now it's love of the bottom line and manna, every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost part.

For me, my country is just like another one of my children, I want her healthy, secure, with strong foundations under her which she can use as a spring board into the future. And I don't mind sacrificing to that end. I don't think she can remain healthy without the foundations of manufacturing and industry. I don't see anyway on earth that this can be the case.

I quit a job, good paying, secure, great retirement and benefit package, because I perceived it to be harmful to my country. I could be retiring very, very early if I had kept it. So, I would be telling my son or daughter that there is more to life than what's in their bank account.

Your scenario is rather a blind study, as India has everything to gain, and our nation has everything to lose. Given the odds of India wanting to start up auto building in the USofA.

So, as far as what makes a conservative to me, it's someone who loves God enough to have made it their personal business and eager, joyful, task, to know Him. His expectations, his instructions, his warnings and why, and what He expects from someone that loves Him.

A Conservative loves his family, present and future generations and does everything in his power to ensure their future and pass on the inheritance that he received from his forefathers, and that being wealth that is not measured in dollars.

A conservative loves his country, and his fellow countrymen as brothers and neighbors, and does his best not to foul up his place in that society, and never behaves in a me first, last, and always manner.

As far as God is concerned this globalism is a real destructive idea. He confused the languages at the Tower of Babel and began man on his evolving into different races for a reason. He did not want globalism, nor man under the heel of a one world dictator, or one legal authority, as is bound to happen when nations are dead as far as sovereignty and self determination is concerned. Better for the world and mankind that dictators are limited as was Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam, than the entire world come under the heel of one such dictator.

Also it was God's plan to reward those people and nations that love and honor him as an example to those nations and people that don't, as stark counterpoints to create jealousy and longing for the blessings of God in those that don't know Him. We are hated right now because of our blessings, Al Queda hates us because our God has blessed us more abundently than any nation ever conceived in the history of the world, while their god has them eating sand.

Remember the tape of Ben Laden and his head moulah discussing the victory of 9-11? Remember what the moulah was saying to Ben Laden? Let me quote him, "I was praying and asking allah why America has everything and we have nothing, when the great news of our victory came to me on the radio". This is an example of the dark jealousy of those far from God. When all people are mixed together as far as their standing with God it's confusion. How can a nation receive the rich abundance of God when it is a confused mixture of believers and unbelievers? Especially when the unbelievers begin to outnumber those that do? "There is a way that seems right to a man, whose end is destruction".

We have our foot taking the first steps on that road to destruction. The bible is very clear about what happens to the super wealthy that pushes man down that road for their gain, who have saved gold and silver for the end times. They end up in caves, throwing their gold and silver in the dust because they are worthless. They will beg the mountains to fall on them and hide them from the Lamb, they will try to destroy the new bodies they find themselves in and death will flee far from them.

This is what God has sworn that globalism will bring, the end of sovereign self determining nations, man under the rule of one tyrant, the rising of nations and peoples to throw him off, ending in nuclear destructon, enjoy your temporary gain, your kids won't have nearly as much fun.

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

Do you stick to your principles and decry [in my opinion wrongly] that outsourcing is bad for the Indian country's economy and that s/he should not take the well paying job because it indirectly takes away a job from someone who lives in India?

Uhhh... Your analogy has a fatal flaw. In order for it to work, the Indian SUV manufactured in the US would have to be shipped back to India for sale to an Indian buyer who has a brother that used to work in a factory that manufactured the same SUV's, but now has no middle-class job, because that factory has been closed and the job has been shipped to the US, where families on the lowest rung of society live in makeshift cardboard shacks and cook with cow dung. Since that situation, like any valid reasoning for tariff-free trade with slavery nations, only exists in fantasy land, your entire argument evaporates into a tiny puff of smoke.

[oceanview]

that example is meaningless, since the cars being produced by the Indian company ARE BEING SOLD IN THE US MARKET!

This has nothing to do with what IBM is doing: transferring jobs and capital spending to India where they have no essentially no market, no profits, to serve the US market where they have both.

[applemac_g4]

>Do you stick to your principles and decry [in my
>opinion wrongly] that outsourcing is bad for the Indian
>country's economy

You misunderstand.

At issue is not whether outsourcing is good or outsourcing is bad in the context of some globalist economic theory. The question is whether the outsourcing of American jobs to foreign countries is good for middle class Americans.

As far as the Indian economy goes, it is of no concern to me.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

To make your question fit reality, IMO, the Indians would have to be exporting the cars back to India. They are here because wages are too high in India. Their American partners would retain the right to sell to Americans -- if there were any Americans who could afford them. Yes, let the Americans work for the Indians. They can steal the IP easier that way.

Finally, America would have to ruled by tyrants who permitted "captialism" in a few areas of the country.

I am not against free trade and comparative advantages. What's happening ain't free trade.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

At least three of us took your test. Did you grade any of them? If so please tell me who. All our answers were similar.

I know I failed the worst since I could not relate "the market for automobiles is smokin' in America" and the Indians are here to help meet the demand to anything to do with us in India or China.

I do not understand how this relates to our guys in India or, especially, China where domestic markets belong to local partners (government conglomerates) who also demand our technology as a condition of doing business. There are also those pesky IP violations and WTO violations in China that screw the foreigners.

. I do not know the actual conditions in India. Are American companies allowed to function and sell to the domestic market without "partners?" Could Americans move in to meet the demand of a smokin' market?