Mich. voters: Santorum connects better than Romney (It's not just Michigan)

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum promised Monday to revive manufacturing, cut taxes and shrink government, pledges that drew loud applause from conservative Michigan voters who said he was more in line with their values than native son and GOP rival Mitt Romney.

Santorum's growing connection with Michigan conservatives risks embarrassing Romney in his home state. Romney was counting on a strong finish in Michigan's presidential primary on Feb. 28 to carry him into the big, multistate round of voting a week later on Super Tuesday.

But Santorum, fueled by a recent trio of victories and sensing an opportunity to upset or at least bloody Romney with a strong primary finish of his own, is charging hard at a state that he says shares many of the same characteristics as his blue-collar state of Pennsylvania. Santorum pledged Monday that, under his administration of less government and more individual freedom, "manufacturing jobs will come back here to Muskegon."

"Define "unequal".

I gave you a great example in post 95.

Unequal means they don't play by the same rules.

Communist countries are inherently unequal because the government owns the means of production. We tend to assume that when we buy goods from a company, that they will eventually directly or indirectly buy goods back from us. That's not the case with Communist China. They aren't buying goods, they are buying the means of production and debt.

Countries with nothing to offer but labor are inherently unequal. It only makes sense to trade with such countries as long as your own economy is at full employment.

Inequality can also result from differing norms of social and environmental protections. China doesn't care about worker safety or environmental protections, so it gives them yet another cost advantage. Free trade then undermines the protections you've engineered in your own economy, by driving your firms out of business since they have to compete against firms that don't have such rules.

"You are making the argument for jobs in general, not manufacturing jobs in particular. Why do the new jobs need to be in manufacturing? "

Because most jobs follow the manufacturing jobs. Research and development needs to have access to current processes for testing and idea generation. A lot of marketing activity also tends to be close to the product.
Because manufacturing know how and capacity allows the creation of new products. Once you've transferred that knowledge and your own knowledge base begins to dry up, you're idea generating capacity becomes limited.
Because ultimately agriculture and manufactured goods are still basic needs. Other elements of the economy are less necessary and thus less stable.
Because manufactured goods still represent a large part of the consumer expenditure.
Because manufacturing is one of the two big things that have really changed and thrown us into the economic quagmire. We can reverse the overseas outsourcing of manufacturing. The other change is oil prices, we can probably reverse that too.

You can add jobs in other areas of the economy: Service, information, health care and entertainment. But they are more susceptible to economic downturns. You might be able to argue healthcare is not, but healthcare is a different beast altogether.

Many services aren't necessary. In a crunch, people can fall back to ironing their own clothes and cooking their own burgers. You can see that in stock sector rotation charts. Industry recovers first, then services.

Also whoever controls production, typically controls the related services.

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.