Replies

I'm not sure if you were referring to me or the other freeper as a protectionist in your reply. But I'll explain my position briefly.

I'm not a protectionist. I don't think tariffs or federal regulations help the economy. I think if we lifted many federal regulations, American companies -- in the short term -- wouldn't find it fiscally necessary to offshore. But the larger issue still remains, and the greed of companies would return to seek higher profits. And this is where I am undecided but have not yet heard an argument from the unrestricted free traders to compel me to side with them.

The argument is this: the argument of unrestricted free trade is based primarily upon the economize theories of Adam Smith. While Smith was a genius and most of his theories have been proved correct, he could not have possibly envisioned technology that would allow home-based companies to employ workers from other nations -- in every sphere of manufacture and service. That is, the concept was that if another country can manufacture a particular good cheaper than the home market, let them do it and focus your attention on something else. Offshoring has gotten to the point now where we not only let the manufacturing of many of our goods to go to other countries, but now allow more and more employment of foreign nationals in our country. That is, there are many foreign nationals living in America working at a lower wage than Americans were. And don't think that they're living here means they are substantially contributing to our economy. They are here to make and save money and spend as little as possible. On-shore offshoring has resulted in substantial unemployment in the Seattle area. The companies that hire these offshore employees are partially subsidized by their governments. While American workers are extremely competitive, they cannot compete with the economies of entire nations.

I'm not sure what the solution is, and it may be righting itself because offshoring is proving not to be as successful as its proponents had hoped. But my theoretical debate centers on the hypothesis that if there are no restrictions whatsoever, what if enough employers chose to offshore and caused something like 20% unemployment in this country? Proponents say, "oh that would never happen." Right. And 11 million Latino would never invade our country illegally and then demand social services.

A key component to a market economy is the time required for the market to adjust. This does not happen overnight. With no restrictions on firing American workers and replacing them with foreign nationals, theoretically, a spike in unemployment to anywhere near 20% would be akin to economic sabotage. Most argue for the need for some controls on business (such as anti-trust laws). And in that regard, view free-trade the way conservatives, not libertarians, view liberty, that it is not absolute but comes with some restrictions in order to guarantee the greatest degree of liberty for the greatest number of people.

The false economy caused by the 11 million now demanding citizenship or its equivalent rights and privileges is a perfect example of what happens when there are no practical restrictions (there are, but they are ignored making them de facto non-existent).