[Paul Ross]

Yeahright. That's why we lost world war ii. We simply couldn't build a war time industrial base largely from scratch fast enough. Again, dude, if you're only advantage is price, and they begin to rise again, you lose.

Your knowledge of history is suspect. We didn't have to build the defense industrial base "from scratch" in World War II. We already had a domestic industrial base...sorely underutilized... that was quite available for conversion.

To repeat: The U.S. industrial base was INTACT going into World War II, as we had protected it to the max with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff so reviled by your side. And that protected industrial base was what made the difference in the war.

Wither now that industrial base?

[Asclepius]

And that protected industrial base was what made the difference in the war.

Let me change the line of questioning as I appear to have you flummoxed. If an "industrial base" is so horribly vulnerable that it requires the massive subsidy of onerous, consumer-punishing protectionist legislation (as you yourself argue), or the subsidy of slave labour in the third world to even make it profitable at all (as you yourself argue), does that not suggest to you, ahem, a hiccough in your line of reasoning?

[Toddsterpatriot]

To repeat: The U.S. industrial base was INTACT going into World War II, as we had protected it to the max with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff so reviled by your side. And that protected industrial base was what made the difference in the war.

Wither now that industrial base?

Check it out, Smoot Hawley helped us win WW II. A unique perspective to say the least.