Trust me, I am no fan of excessive government regulation, including regulation that attempts to choose winners and losers.
I've got a big problem with government regs that attempt to chooose winners and loosers between Americans.
I've got no problem with picking winners and loosers between Americans and workers in other countries. That's in the national self-interest, promoting the general welfare, etc. In the same light, nor do I have a problem between picking winners and loosers between winners and losers in different countries. I'd make out tariff higher on China than Mexico, for example. Mexico should be our cheap labor source of choice.
I've got a big problem with government regs that attempt to chooose winners and loosers between Americans. I've got no problem with picking winners and loosers between Americans and workers in other countries. That's in the national self-interest, promoting the general welfare, etc. In the same light, nor do I have a problem between picking winners and loosers between winners and losers in different countries. I'd make out tariff higher on China than Mexico, for example. Mexico should be our cheap labor source of choice.
Very well said. The influence of OPIC which uses the full faith and credit to subsidize overseas investment must also be considered in all these discussions. The companies investing in offshore provision of goods and service will be reimbursed by the Americna taxpayer if they lose their investment due to currency manipulations or political risk (nationalization, war etc.) If this is such a good idea why don't they absorb the risk themselves or pay for private insurance. I note there are no private insurers offering such coverage at a rate that would make such investments feasable becuase of the high risk involved.