Actualy I would prefer teh Department of Commerce but putting the choice between teh two you mentioned is like giving a choice for news between radio North Korea and and radio Havana. The problem with teh Cato institure is tehy j=knowingly misstae facts because tehy thinks it bolsters their case for teh ridicuslously mis name trdae system we have now which is anything but Free. Now the Choice of 2001 for teh study date and teh study chosenis interesting Two events from 2001 come to mind. the first is the Orion Chinses jet icnident any one remember that ?The second is there seems to be something about an event on September 11, 2001 that woudl also artificially depress investment in nations outside the USA that were percieved as at risk. So the date chosen means we have unrepresentative data and i have not even discussed the onset of the recession and teh fact the the big boom in IT outsourcing got going in 2002 and 2003.
According to a study by Deloitte and Touche Consulting, 94 percent of outward U.S. foreign direct manufacturing investment in 2001 flowed to other rich countries.
Now the study inculudes investment in existing compainies in Europe and Canada Thus if an American drug company were to buy a Swiss Company that had existing planst in teh USA that would still be included in teh offshoring of capital for this study so as such reference to this study which is not bsed on just new plant and equipment is to put it mildly ridculous.
This is just an example of the article's bias and lying by using numbers that do not relate to the specific issue. It is typical for both the Cato institute and many libertarian economists.