[DugwayDuke]

"Not as a first step. I honestly think that we should first and foremost eliminate all the subsidies to overseas investment and to the hiring of guest workers in the USA. IMHO that may well be enough to make teh turn arround."

Interesting. You're against subsidies for international investment but you have no problem with subsidizing "enterprise zones". Isn't this a form of picking winners and losers?

"However, I think tarriffs may prove useful for dealing particularly with those nations that engage in unfair trade practices such as the PRC and India with its capital controls."

Of course tarriffs make sense here.

"If, however the USA is still seeing a net outflow of capital then I would agree that a protective tarriff is needed."

Now why did you interject the preservation of capital into this discussion? The question was the use of tarriffs to preserve jobs.

[harpseal]

Interesting. You're against subsidies for international investment but you have no problem with subsidizing "enterprise zones". Isn't this a form of picking winners and losers?

An enterprose zone as I defined it would not be a subsidy per se. It would be a place open to any American company employing Americans using American materials to produce products for sale in the USA or abroad. While personally I would prefer that we go to a no income tax economy witth only absolutely necessary regulation, I recognize that it will take time to get there from here.

Now how exactly is that in any way picking winners and losers?

[harpseal]

Now why did you interject the preservation of capital into this discussion? The question was the use of tarriffs to preserve jobs.

It is through capital investment that jobs are created.