Actually it is, when the labor force that was formerly involved in skilled machining or similarly intense knowledge...and essential for teaching the next generation to learn the skills...is disbanded in the U.S. and forced while still needing employment to take up the housing trades...which ultimately failed them.
You keep forgetting LESSON # 1 for Liberty. INDEPENDENCE.
You are destroying it without any historical awareness whatsoever.
As long as there is no drop in production levels (and there is none yet, domestic production is only increasing) I don't see any danger to US economy.
False when calculated on a per capita basis. And in absolute terms...we need to keep our eye on the potential military enemies of liberty...who have already formed their "Shanghai Pact." A very real axis of evil that the traders pretend is just talk.
China has vaulted past the U.S. and Japan, and now makes FOUR TIMES more steel than the U.S.A. And China now has manifest designs on deploying...with our best technology...THREE TIMES as many civilian nuclear reactors as we have. I guarantee you that they will be civilian in name only. Such reactors have always provided valuable material for the military.
The Defense Science Board has explicitly warned the President that the growing dependency on Chinese-manufactured electronics is setting us up for a Trojan-Horse situation. They are capable...and more than interested-in exploiting our vulnerability that the traders have thoughtlessly created.
In sum, the trader-centric view, which is clearly what you preach...is extraordinarily short-sighted. The unconcern for the consequence of building up irrepairably a devastatingly deeply hostile nation's industrial prowess is incredible simply incredible. Adam Smith would reject the modern contortions of his own theory. He would never have approved of Thomas Friedman's earlier views, or the current Thomas PM Barnett's false prophecies that "China will never attack the U.S. and lose its trade partner". Totally nuts. The people who actually run China have told us differently, to-wit:
Deng Xiaoping: "[Stake-holders?] Tell your President that we don't have such a relationship."
So what have got with the modern Bush/RAT trade-views? Short-sightedness dressed up as a philosophy.
Who woulda' thunk it.
What do you think they do with all the US dollars in their reserve?
To a great extent...they sit on them. They are not doing as you claim, i.e., They will either buy something from the US or give it to some other country in return for some other goods (who in turn will use it to buy something from the US).
Their systemmatic effort at accumulating the 1.3 trillion slush fund of unrepatriated, unexchanged dollars disproves this theses conclusively. And it will soon be over $2 trillion. They consciously refuse to buy those American products that we have a comparative advantage in technologically...and that would keep our industrial base active and robust. They believe in "Win-Lose" trading. And they are pushing for all the things which accomplish that. Their whole purpose is war, and they intend to use the accumulated surplus to turn the tables, to continue to pirate the technology that we retain, and undermine and destroy our own production and capability thereto.
If they buy out our companies...since they don't want our products...it is to further both missions. Relocate the technology and production to China...and shut down the U.S. Witness what happened to Magnequench. It was the very model of all they propose to do in every other technological field. The UNOCAL deal would have gone down the same way. UNOCAL had scads of deep-sea drilling technology and equipment, and also rare-earth lanthanide production machinery and technique (all worth many billions more than the stated value of the company...to the PLA), that China would have picked up on the cheap, and relocated to China. And then shut down the U.S. operations.
Like trade surplus, trade deficit also evens-out in the long run.
In the long run, we'll be dead before your things "even-out." There is empirical evidence besides our current experience...that classically shows that...and refutes your position. It was formerly called Great Britain. Its manufacturing and engineering prowess was the world's greatest going into the end of the 19th Century. But they let it slip via "Free trade" unilaterally out of the country. Not so great anymore. They are an also-ran.
That's what your scam will do to us.
Hence, a true American...rejects such give-away trade views. George Washington rejected it. His mentor, Alexander Hamiliton, a profound commercialist, founded the alternative, seeing more deeply than Adam Smith did how essential independence was.
The American System is truly the way to go.
Firstly there is no indication that such a thing is
actually happening. US is still by far the most preferred destination for all they skilled intelligentsia of the world. They are coming here because there is far better opportunity here then anywhere else. What you are doing is simply parroting the media propaganda and all the lies and doomsday scenario about US losing skilled labour jobs and the work force is shifting to making hamburgers and fries. What’s actually happening is US is losing some skilled labour job and generating new ones. The tech companies are creating more jobs then they ever did.
“You keep forgetting LESSON # 1 for Liberty. INDEPENDENCE.”
As a matter of fact I AM talking about “INDEPENDENCE”. The independence to allow open and free competition. the independence for the market economy to operate freely without any regulation from outside. Protecting your “skilled labour” job exclusively for you as if you are entitled to a “skilled labour” job as matter of right, has nothing to do with “Liberty”.
“False when calculated on a per capita basis.”
Are you saying production levels have dropped per capita basis? Your source?
“And in absolute terms...we need to keep our eye on the potential military enemies of liberty...who have already formed their “Shanghai Pact.” A very real axis of evil that the traders pretend is just talk.”
Are you arguing against outsourcing in general or outsourcing to China? I treat the two issues separately. If you are arguing against outsourcing to China then we dont have an argument. In case of China their trade policy is defined not by market economy but by a government intent on building up their military for war. I agree with you on that one.
Except for that, my argument about trade deficit was from a pure economic stand point that applied to most countries. In case of China political concerns should definitely take precedence over economic gains. Trade deficit in pure economic terms is hardly a threat. Every trade had some imbalances and there is never any trade that fair to all. And yet trade is necessary because its the only way to keep the economy afloat. America wont remain a super power without it. When countries uses their economic gains as a result of trade to finance and prepare for a future conflict, that is a threat no doubt but not from an economic stand point but a political one. In China’s case is particularly concerning because their so called economic goals are not determined by market forces but by their communist government.
Hence I wish to know if you are against the whole idea of outsourcing itself or concern has more to do with China. Its important to distinguish between the two.
” It was formerly called Great Britain. Its manufacturing and engineering prowess was the world’s greatest going into the end of the 19th Century. But they let it slip via “Free trade” unilaterally out of the country. Not so great anymore. They are an also-ran. “
While I agree that long term can be very long, but the example you drew upon is a very poor one. Trade under the British empire was mercantilist version of trade that aimed at exploiting the colonies to bring home more “species” or bullion.
The British government commanded all the raw material from its colony, closed down all local production under its colonies, to boost the industrial production in England. The colonies became nothing more then harvesting grounds for raw material that would be shipped in bulk half the world away to Britian and would be brought back and sold to the very same colonies at exorbitant prices. The result was that the colonies were impoverished to the level of starvation. The colonies produced cotton but her people had nothing to wear. The colonies produced indigo, tea, spices and sugar while her people had nothing to eat. A country like India became the poorest country on the planet within just a century. England’s economy became rich but British Empire was the poorest empire in history. British Empire had to break up because its colonies became too poor to justify Britain spending enormous amount of money to hold its empire together in face of growing political unrest. Their end was written on the wall, not because of “free trade” but because of “un-free trade”.
“Hence, a true American...rejects such give-away trade views. George Washington rejected it. His mentor, Alexander Hamiliton, a profound commercialist, founded the alternative, seeing more deeply than Adam Smith did how essential independence was. “
Exactly what are you arguing? Trade or politics? What exactly are you arguing? No trade at all for America? Or only a one way trade favouring America?
Independence is a political concept, trade is economic. I dont see any trade off between the two. In fact without economic independence there is no true independence. And for a country to have true economic independence her market economy must be allowed to operate freely on a global stage without any governmental regulation or selective protection.
What you seem to be arguing in favour off is anything but “American system” rather a Euro-socialist system.