So you're suggesting that we're better off if the UAE takes it's billions of dollars and invests it in China instead? WOuld you rather have them spending their money helping Chinese companies build up their infrastructure and fund the development of technology in China?
We live in a world economy. We need to constantly work to improve how we do things. We need to constantly be investing in new technology. We need to always be looking for new markets for our products. We need to always be looking for ways to imporve efficiency.
If we don't someone out there will pass us by. They'll be able to make things faster and cheaper. They'll have better technology. They'll be able to do things that we can't.
In our country the Unions are constantly fighting against this. They oppose new technology because it allows us to manufacture things will less people per item we make. However, by fighting that they make it so we can't be competitive in manufacturing, so instead of our manufacturing growing or holding steady, we keep losing business to other companies that are more efficient and through advancements can make better products. The end result is the union members lose their jobs. If we could keep working on being more competitive we could be taking market share from others and expanding our markets and hiring more american workers. Instead we hav to outsource or move our manufacturing elsewhere to try and stay in business.
Even with that American automotive companies are being driven into bankruptcy by the concessions they accepted because of the unions, while foreign owned automakers are building cars on US soil with non-union laborers and making profits. The non-union workers aren't even getting paid less in general, they and the factories they work in are just more efficient.
Isolationism simply leads to irrevalence. If we do stupid things to discourage foreign investment without good reason, and we discourage foreign countries and companies from buying from us, we are going to be passed up technologicly and economicly by other countries.
Much of our military lead is a technological one. I don't mean to discount the incredible value of a well trained volunteer military, but our relatively small volunteer army wouldn't be able to do what it does without the technological advantages it has.
We wouldn't be able to control battlefields without our complete dominance in air superiority. We wouldn't be able to accurately bomb strategic targets with few to no losses without our technological advantages.
To feed the American economy, we need trade. We need raw materials. We need to continue to show the world that the US is the best place for them to invest their moeny because it will continue to provide a good return on investments.
That keeps our economy stron, and gives our government the tax base they can use to invest in our military.
There's no way America could have grown to be a superpower without trade and foreign investment, and if we do to much to discourage trade and foreign investment, our power will fade.
Oh, stop it! You're making far too much sense for this thread. /sarc
"So you're suggesting that we're better off if the UAE takes it's billions of dollars and invests it in China instead? WOuld you rather have them spending their money helping Chinese companies build up their infrastructure and fund the development of technology in China?"
I'd rather have someone else funding China than us. At least that way we won't be pointing at ourselves as the source of the proverbial blade that got drawn across our national throat.
"We live in a world economy."
By choice, not by necessity.
"We need to constantly work to improve how we do things. We need to constantly be investing in new technology. We need to always be looking for new markets for our products. We need to always be looking for ways to imporve efficiency."
All of which can be done without extensive dependency upon foreign nations, like was done during the first 170 years of this nation's existence.
"If we don't someone out there will pass us by. They'll be able to make things faster and cheaper. They'll have better technology. They'll be able to do things that we can't."
Sorry, but the majority of that is funded through the purchasing power of US dollars obtained through free trade policies. If we had continued with protectionist economic policies most nations that have surpassed us in many things would still be struggling to catch up.
"In our country the Unions are constantly fighting against this. They oppose new technology because it allows us to manufacture things will less people per item we make."
Correct, they are a major problem since they have become corporations themselves, selling their members to the highest bidder. That's why they also hate Right to Work laws which ends compulsory unionism schemes. That's why it annoys me that Hastert has refused to schedule a roll-call vote on a National Right to Work Law, which would make it illegal to force people to join or pay dues/fees to a union to get or keep a job.
"Isolationism simply leads to irrevalence."
Isolationism and protectionism are entirely seperate entities. This country has been heavily involved internationally during even some of it's most heavily protectionist periods.
"Much of our military lead is a technological one. I don't mean to discount the incredible value of a well trained volunteer military, but our relatively small volunteer army wouldn't be able to do what it does without the technological advantages it has. We wouldn't be able to control battlefields without our complete dominance in air superiority. We wouldn't be able to accurately bomb strategic targets with few to no losses without our technological advantages."
And most of that is being etched away by foreign militaries that are feeding on American free trade policies. US trade dollars and technological investments funds most of the military gap closure between the US and China, which most defense groups are in agreement is closing by at least 2 years for every calendar year that passes. Imagine in 15-20 years a Chinese military with equal capbilities in most of it's military (and numerical superiority) and that'll be end result of penny-wise pound-foolish American free trade policies.
"To feed the American economy, we need trade. We need raw materials."
Then we only do trade treaties specifically with those nations that have raw materials not physically available in the United States.
"There's no way America could have grown to be a superpower without trade and foreign investment, and if we do to much to discourage trade and foreign investment, our power will fade."
That is incorrect. Before 1960 no more than 5% of the US economy was dependent upon foreign trade, and most of that consisted of raw materials and luxury good imports and exports of surplus finished goods. And we were an unmatched, technologically superior world power. Most areas we had fallen behind on were from neglecting the military BY CHOICE (a leftover from the inherent dislike of standing armies), not because of protectionist policies. The basic long-term ability for a nation to remain a world power is industrial infrastructure. For a nation to survive in the long term it has to have a heavy industry base capable of prolonged use for warfare, and as free as possible from enemy interference. China is playing it smart, they practice protectionism at home while encouraging free trade policies by the United States. As a result, their industrial base is rapidly expanding and their technological capabilities are skyrocketing. American free trade policies is the turbo-booster for their protectionist policies. I have no doubt in 10-15 years you'll see a sudden rise in wages across the employment spectrum in China pushed by the Chinese govt, to create a domestic consumer base to replace the US consumer base. Once enough of their economy is no longer dependent on the USA, though damaging it still my be, they will be able to afford a trade cutt-off with United States and war.