I like to think so. I did well enough in microeconomics, anyway ;)
The textile industry you are so happy to be done with is an essential defense industry.
I think you're missing the point of what I'm saying. If textiles are high value-added industries, that American firms can compete in, I say "go textiles". But they aren't, and we can't - domestic textile workers have priced themselves out of the market for textile workers. Therefore, I draw comfort from the fact that, even though the textile industry may be dying, the resources currently expended on manufacturing textiles will be put to more productive use elsewhere, thus making all of us richer in the long run.
So is the shoe industry, Tanneries, steal production, brass manufacturing, farming, chemicals and assembly lines for thousands of items.
So, essentially, any manufacturing industry is critical to national security?
Adam Smith made exceptions for national security, too. He thought that the British should continue to produce their own sailcloth so that their navy wouldn't be dependent on foreign suppliers. I happen to agree, but I think both Smith and I would draw the line much more narrowly than you have done. If there is some thing that is demonstrably critical to the physical defense of this country, in and of itself, then a reasonable case can be made that that particular thing should be produced in such a way that it cannot be used to hold us hostage. But that's a pretty stringent standard, I think. For most things, trying to claim that it's critical to national security - and I'd put most of the things you listed in here - is just special pleading that you shouldn't have to compete because you're too "important".
To wave the flag for a lower paying "service" job is down right stupid.
But my whole point was that those service sector jobs aren't lower paying. That's certainly the popular conception, but it's completely false. After all, we have a service-driven economy now, while nations like China and Taiwan are manufacturing-oriented economies. But, who has the higher standard of living? If manufacturing is so great, why aren't the Chinese living in the wealthiest nation in the world?
Instead, we are - you are fortunate enough to live in the wealthiest nation in the history of the entire world. And it's grown wealthy over the last 20 years especially by providing services to the rest of the world. Again, I stress to you that burger-flipping is not the be-all and end-all of services. Telecommunications is a service, too. And banking. And so forth. It is empirically false that all service-sector jobs are low-paying - the bulk of them pay much more than manufacturing jobs do.
Our problem is over regulation brought on by controlling Socialists. Must a company pollute to produce? No. The solution may be prohibitive to implement with a old factory but how is a company to build a new technology factory with a capitol gains tax in place? They are in the same straits as the family business with the "Inheritance Tax".
Look, I'm not about to defend the current tax regime. But I feel compelled to point out that, even if all taxes and regulation went away tomorrow, American textile workers are still not going to work for $0.80 an hour, or whatever their foreign counterparts make. American workers are highly skilled - they are the most productive and best-educated workforce in the world. Doesn't it seem wasteful for them to do low-skilled jobs that others will do for some absurdly low wage?
Wouldn't it make more sense to concentrate on the highly skilled, high value-added jobs instead? I promise you, the 10 or 20 fellows (or whatever) who designed Boeing's latest airliner created far more value for their company and their country than all the thousands of folks who actually build the thing do, put together....