All that we can obtain. "If an exchange between two parties is voluntary, it will not take place unless both believe they will benefit from it. Most economic fallacies derive from the neglect of this simple insight, from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another." -Milton Friedman
Taken to its ultimate evolution, nothing would be made in America because everything can be made cheaper in a third world country.
That's a fallacy. There are more than simply the costs of labor to consider. Workmanship, transportation and competitive advantage are just a few others.
So, when we get to the point that nothing is manufactured here any more, what do all of those Americans that are out of work do for a living???
They do that which their neighbors most desire from them and they are most able to do, if they seek the highest rewards for their time.
Countries are literally defined by the basket of goods and services they offer. What is the problem with defining our country around a set of goods and services and using our ability to cause pain to others to enforce our position?
The purpose of the government is to defend my liberty and property. Not to cause pain to me or those I seek to trade with.
America already has a serious current account deficit. That means we purchase more stuff from abroad than we sell to foreigners. No country can sustain a current account deficit for more than three years at a rate of 5% or more without seeing a devaluation of its currency. We are there this year.
A devaluation of our currency by foreign holders of said currency would only be a price response to our government's inflation and the holder's own preference for what price to sell his goods. His pricing power is, of course, limited by his competition, and the demand of American consumers. There's nothing nefarious or bad about this (well, aside from our government devaluing our money via inflation).
So the theory is that free trade is good for business. The problem is that not every American is in or is a part of a business that benefits from free trade.
So what? Not every American was in the candlemaking business when light bulbs were invented. The candlemakers had to adjust to meet the demands of those who have money to exchange. This is beneficial as it steers production (of goods and services) to meet demands. Surely you don't hold otherwise?!
If shoes cost a dollar, what does that matter if you have not a dime in your pocket??
Non sequitor. If you want to make money you have to do something that people want. It matters not that your father, and your father's father were candlemakers. Times, thankfully, change.
1 - When nothing is made here any more, where will you work?
I will work in a capacity that meets the demands of my neighbors for goods and services. No different than now.
2 - When the majority of the country is unable to earn a living wage, who will you serve?
Why would people be unable to earn a living wage? Free trade has boosted the standard of living of Americans to the lead in the world. Our poor have air conditioning, refrigeration, automobiles, and a host of goods that would have been unthinkable luxuries for the rich just 150 years ago. The reason this has taken place is specialization of labor and the associated relative reduction in costs. You propose undercutting the process that has made us the envy of the world. Limiting our ability to cut consumer costs would only serve to stagnate the standard of living by locking spending on goods at their current level.
3 - What do you think constitutes a reasonable balance??
The most reasonable course is to not thwart the very system that generates our wealth. You, nor any other bureaucrat, is endowed with the foresight to arbitrarily set price and wage levels. That is the economic nonsense that bankrupted the USSR. Quit trying to institute the madness here!
If that neighbor who desires also has a job and the wherewithall to pay for that AND if it is not already being done by one of the millions of workers we have imported - both skilled and unskilled.}
[The purpose of the government is to defend my liberty and property. Not to cause pain to me or those I seek to trade with.]
True but you are suggesting the government had nothing to do with the situation and it had much to do with it. While it is not designed to cause pain, it is not designed use our tax dollars to finance other countries to put us out of work and it is not designed to use our tax dollars to finance the moving offshore of American companies to put us out of work.
[So what? Not every American was in the candlemaking business when light bulbs were invented. The candlemakers had to adjust to meet the demands of those who have money to exchange. This is beneficial as it steers production (of goods and services) to meet demands. Surely you don't hold otherwise?!]
When the light bulb was invented - it didn't move the work offshore - it remained here so the candlemakers could perhaps learn to make light bulbs. Big difference.]
[Non sequitor. If you want to make money you have to do something that people want. It matters not that your father, and your father's father were candlemakers. Times, thankfully, change.]
That sounds so good. Now once again, you have to do something that someone can pay money for, that means those people also have to have jobs and disposable income. This is not a shifting of jobs, this is an elimination of jobs in America. That is the difference.]
{I will work in a capacity that meets the demands of my neighbors for goods and services. No different than now.]
Now that sounds good also, but you see what if those neighbors do not have the money to pay for your services or goods and if those service jobs are already filled by someone else (millions of foreign workers, for example).
[ Why would people be unable to earn a living wage? Free trade has boosted the standard of living of Americans to the lead in the world. Our poor have air conditioning, refrigeration, automobiles, and a host of goods that would have been unthinkable luxuries for the rich just 150 years ago. The reason this has taken place is specialization of labor and the associated relative reduction in costs. You propose undercutting the process that has made us the envy of the world. Limiting our ability to cut consumer costs would only serve to stagnate the standard of living by locking spending on goods at their current level
Now are you saying that all this great standard of living we have in this country is all due to foreign trade? Don't think so. Remember when we made TV, washers/dryers, refrigerators, all those luxuries? WEll, guess what, people could afford them then. I haven't seen a reduction in price. I have seen the price of items rise drastically. Just looked at a new stove - $500 to $800 for just a normal electric stove. Now our salaries have not quadrupled in the last 15 years (since I last bought a stove and they were made in USA), but the price of stoves have.
Yes, Christmas lights, widgets, cheap shoes, cheap clothing (by the way, you do understand the difference between 'cheap' and 'economical' don't you. WEll we are getting cheap things, not economical. (But that is a different story).
What we are attempting to get across to you is someone, somewhere, has to be making money at some time. WE can't just reach into the sky and pull it out. To do that we have to have a product or service that someone, showhere, somehow has the money to buy. You never say what kind of jobs you think will be available - it is always the 'one my neighbors want' - now what will that be in light of the fact your neighbor may and probably will be either out of work - or seriously strapped for the monies to pay you.