Making the nation dependent on the manufacture of necessities in foreign countries has not proved itself, and is a novel approach to national security.
I am for the former; you are for the latter.
You prove your theory. Mine is already proven. 
Posted on 01/16/2008 4:01:09 AM PST by LowCountryJoe
Rochester
IN the days before Tuesday’s Republican presidential primary in Michigan, Mitt Romney and John McCain battled over what the government owes to workers who lose their jobs because of the foreign competition unleashed by free trade. Their rhetoric differed — Mr. Romney said he would “fight for every single job,” while Mr. McCain said some jobs “are not coming back” — but their proposed policies were remarkably similar: educate and retrain the workers for new jobs.
All economists know that when American jobs are outsourced, Americans as a group are net winners. What we lose through lower wages is more than offset by what we gain through lower prices. In other words, the winners can more than afford to compensate the losers. Does that mean they ought to? Does it create a moral mandate for the taxpayer-subsidized retraining programs proposed by Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney?
Um, no. Even if you’ve just lost your job, there’s something fundamentally churlish about blaming the very phenomenon that’s elevated you above the subsistence level since the day you were born. If the world owes you compensation for enduring the downside of trade, what do you owe the world for enjoying the upside?
[Snip]
One way to think about that is to ask what your moral instincts tell you in analogous situations. Suppose, after years of buying shampoo at your local pharmacy, you discover you can order the same shampoo for less money on the Web. Do you have an obligation to compensate your pharmacist? If you move to a cheaper apartment, should you compensate your landlord? When you eat at McDonald’s, should you compensate the owners of the diner next door? Public policy should not be designed to advance moral instincts that we all reject every day of our lives.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Making the nation dependent on the manufacture of necessities in foreign countries has not proved itself, and is a novel approach to national security.
I am for the former; you are for the latter.
You prove your theory. Mine is already proven.
Domestic production and distribution of the needs of the American people for the nation's welfare.
Are gym shoes included in those needs?
That's from Argentina.
What's going to be interesting is if this much-prophesied US recession comes about.
Let's watch the economies of China (and to a lesser extent India) implode because they are geared towards mass export of slave-labor produced stuff to the US, rather than to the virtuous cycle of a self-sustaining middle class.
OTOH, China is beginning to levy 25% taxes on foreign companies producing in China for sale to China--the entire "outsourcing" there was merely a way to expropriate our technical know-how; which *may* mean they are going to go for internal consumption -- or it might mean they will use their own factories to undercut the US companies which had been using them as a low-cost production locale.
Of course, if they continue with tainted dog food, toothpaste, and cars apparently made of Kleenex, it might not matter.
Cheers!
By all means embarrass me by summarizing this "full report". You are familiar with its conclusions and base assumption, aren't you?
Which deficit? I only ask because you know-knothings tend to get the types of deficits confused.
Trade deficit and portions of the national debt held by or secured by nonAmerican interests.
Down to an individual resistor, capacitor, potentiometer? Down to the plastic circuit board? Down to the solder and flux? Down to the glass lens?
Yes.
If I were the president I would have vetoed that silly crap, too.
The security of the nation is silly?
This nation would suck without the liberty that we doi have.
I'll remind you that national liberty depends on self sufficiency and security from foreign manipulation, just like personal liberty is.
Lookup the phrase "hydraulic empire".
But you obviously don't understand the consequences of relying on a foreign power to provide you with your necessities and the loss of manufacturing infrastructure to domestically produce those necessities thereby.
Let me take you through the concept one more time.
Does that do it for you?
You don't think that shoes and clothes are necessities? I don't suppose you think that components for our military machines are necessities, either.
Give me some coherent reasoning for necessities that support our way of life to be produced in a foreign country, which country's entire philosophy of government is alien to ours, instead of keeping domestic capability for manufacturing those necessities.
Why yes I do. I just don't think I need to raise my children to work in a gym shoe factory. Maybe your kids are available?
I don't suppose you think that components for our military machines are necessities, either.
I think all our vital components should be made here or by our close allies.
Give me some coherent reasoning for necessities that support our way of life to be produced in a foreign country, which country's entire philosophy of government is alien to ours, instead of keeping domestic capability for manufacturing those necessities.
Which country?
Why not. Sounds like a good entry into the work for to me.
I think all our vital components should be made here or by our close allies.
Which close allies would that be? And can you guarantee they will be close allies in the future, if we are so impudent to institute national policies they don't like.
Which country?
I said, "Give me some coherent reasoning for necessities that support our way of life to be produced in a foreign country, which country's entire philosophy of government is alien to ours, instead of keeping domestic capability for manufacturing those necessities."
Read the label on items you buy. Those countries.
Give me your reasoning for having products we need and use manufactured outside of this country, I mean, of course, other than corporate interests can make a bigger profit.
Let me know how that works out.
Which close allies would that be?
Canada, Great Britain, Japan. Other democracies.
And can you guarantee they will be close allies in the future,
No.
Give me your reasoning for having products we need and use manufactured outside of this country,
I guarantee that if we have to pay more to have 100% of every item manufactured here, we'll have a lower standard of living and less money to spend on defense.
Who knew that freedom and less government involvement were liberal issues. Who knew that economist Arthur Laffer, Nobel economist Milton Friedman, and a legion of other economists that largely influenced Reagan economics were actually liberals. I think the better answer is that you are clueless.
Somehow you've deluded yourself into thinking that this "foreign producer" is one company. I'll ask again, real slowly since it apparently your incapable of actually getting the question into your head. What... is... the... name....of....this... company... that... you... claim... is... becoming... a... monopoly...?
Sure, because foreigners are evil and we shouldn't trade with them. We should just produce every thing in this country. Who cares if it makes everything more expensive. Who cares if it causes our standard of living to decline. Who cares that protectionism results in economic disaster. Are you really this clueless about economics?
Milton Friedman had it right when he said, "Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."
Ah ha, this thread, post #193. That's why I have your alias and that's I will use it in the future to try and illicit response from you...whether you choose to engage or not is your business.
I agree. Buying cheap is not the same as buying smart. WalMart surrendered its founders basic principle of selling only American made products when they decided that price is the only consideration in choosing a product. They opened the door to slave labor, low quality goods and paradoxically increasing the cost of owning products that work.
I bought 3 $50 vacuums and 5 $20 coffee pots - all Chinese made - before finally settling on slightly more expensive American made products that have lasted. I try not to buy Chinese.
Don't get into a lather over sweatshops
By Benjamin Powell and David Skarbek
August 02, 2005
[snip]
We use "sweatshop" to mean those foreign factories with low pay and poor health and safety standards where employees choose to work, not those where employees are coerced into working by the threat of violence. And we admit that by Western standards, sweatshops have abhorrently low wages and poor working conditions. However, economists point out that alternatives to working in a sweatshop are often much worse: scavenging through trash, prostitution, crime, or even starvation.Economists across the political spectrum, from Paul Krugman on the left, to Walter Williams on the right, have defended sweatshops. Their reasoning is straightforward: People choose what they perceive to be in their best interest. If workers voluntarily choose to work in sweatshops, without physical coercion, it must be because sweatshops are their best option. Our recent research - the first economic study to compare systematically sweatshop wages with average local wages - demonstrated this to be true.
[snip]
Our findings should not be interpreted to mean that sweatshop jobs in the third world are ideal by US standards. The point is, they are located in developing countries where these jobs are providing a higher wage than other work.Antisweatshop activists - who argue that consumers should abstain from buying products made in sweatshops - harm workers by trying to stop the trade that funds some of the better jobs in their economies.
Until poor nations' economies develop, buying products made in sweatshops would do more to help third-world workers than San Francisco's ordinance. By purchasing more products made in sweatshops, we create more demand for them and increase the number of factories in these poor economies. That gives the workers more employers to choose from, raises productivity and wages, and eventually improves working conditions. This is the same process of economic development the US went through, and it is ultimately the way third-world workers will raise their standard of living and quality of life.
I guarantee that if we have to pay more to have 100% of every item manufactured here, we'll have a lower standard of living and less money to spend on defense.
And how did we do that in the past when our needs were manufactured here, when we became a world power, a man could buy a house and raise a family on just this income, when our students could take any course of study and be confident he could find a job using it.
And we still fought two wars, one in two theaters?
I'll tell how. Prices were higher, but wages and salaries were higher also. And the people working to sustain everyone else were Americans.
No.
And how did we do that in the past when our needs were manufactured here, when we became a world power, a man could buy a house and raise a family on just this income, when our students could take any course of study and be confident he could find a job using it.
When was that? Be specific.
And we still fought two wars, one in two theaters?
So? You don't think we can do that today? Why not?
I'll tell how. Prices were higher, but wages and salaries were higher also.
And yet our standard of living is higher now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.