There is, however, more to it. With each dollar each of us spends, we are "buying" the future social structure of our country, for our kids and grandkids and posterity. So, done deal or not, it makes sense to debate the issue, and for each of us to decide how to spend our money. We are NOT merely purchasing goods and services: we are purchasing the future of our country . . .
My concern is family enterprise (farm, business) and the communities they support. We are not faceless consumers as in Econ 101. We are people, who live and work in families and communities. For communities to be effective, money has to stay in the community, for charities, ads in high school yearbooks, etc. etc. Not all go to Wal-Mart or China. Small town and rural America is a great strength of our country, and if you don't think it matters, look at the Bush/Gore election map . . .
There is still more to it. Freedom includes the freedom to freely make a living; this includes a reasonable access to productive assets for the people as a whole, not only oligarchists and mega-capitalists.
If economic efficiency were the only consideration, maybe we should all be wage-slaves for an international mega-copropration. However, it is not the only consideration. In addition, as has been pointed out on this thread, government tax and regulatory policies do not create a level-playing field. So "economic efficiency" is distorted.
I agree - sort of ;)
My point to posting was not to forestall debate, but to point out that there's an upside to the loss of manufacturing jobs. Capitalism is all about "creative destruction", as it's phrased - old industries die off and make room for new ones. Less profitable manufacturing jobs disappear and are replaced by more profitable service jobs.
None of this should be taken to mean that these transitions are easy or painless - simply that in the long run, we are better off letting the market seek its own solutions, rather than trying to preserve a particular way of life for a subset of the population, at the expense of everyone else.
My concern is family enterprise (farm, business) and the communities they support. We are not faceless consumers as in Econ 101. We are people, who live and work in families and communities. For communities to be effective, money has to stay in the community, for charities, ads in high school yearbooks, etc. etc.
I agree - more than anything else, small business is the engine of growth in this country. And I think that small business will continue to be just that. I only predict that businesses of the heavy/light manufacturing type will continue to be increasingly endangered. And while that's going to be difficult for some in the short-term, in the long run, we'll all be better off for it.
The world's changed, and this country has changed. The days when a person could get a high-school diploma, head down to the local steel mill or auto parts plant the day after graduation, and get a job that lasted an entire lifetime and paid enough to comfortably support a middle-class family on, are gone. Those days are gone forever. And rather than talking about how to bring them back, I think we're better served by preparing for the future, rather than the past.
There is still more to it. Freedom includes the freedom to freely make a living; this includes a reasonable access to productive assets for the people as a whole, not only oligarchists and mega-capitalists.
Well, you should have access to productive assets in the "your money is as good as anyone else's" sense, but I draw the line at anyone arguing they have a right to a particular standard of living. Everyone should have the same opportunities to provide for themselves, but that doesn't mean that some choices aren't better than others. We don't argue that minimum-wage burger-flippers have a "right" to make more money because they feel they should have a higher standard of living (well, okay - the libs do, but we don't make that argument much around here), so why should that argument be valid for anyone else? Opportunities are rights belonging to everyone - a particular outcome is not.
If economic efficiency were the only consideration, maybe we should all be wage-slaves for an international mega-copropration.
Economic efficiency may not be what concerns us as individuals, but that's what markets do. They move resources to their most productive uses. You can fight the market, and try to sweep back the tide; or, you can try to figure out how to ride the wave and profit from it. I would point out, however, that the fate of nations that try to preserve a particular way of life in the face of a world changing around them is generally not good. Move ahead or die, is the general lesson of history in this respect. Ask the Imperial Chinese. Ask the pre-Meiji Japanese. Ask the Native Americans. Heck, ask the Taliban, who want to pretend that it's still 1350 AD.
And I should point out that slaves are not as productive as free men. Slaves have little vested interest in maximizing productivity - their incentive is to do the absolute minimum amount of work possible. That's not the point you were making, I know, but there it is ;)
In addition, as has been pointed out on this thread, government tax and regulatory policies do not create a level-playing field. So "economic efficiency" is distorted.
Again, I don't mean to defend the current tax and regulatory scheme, but if you go through the CPUSA (still can't get used to that) site, they aren't talking about lowering taxes and reducing regulations. They want to increase tariffs - bottom line. They aren't arguing that they're overtaxed and over-regulated, but that wages elsewhere are "unfairly" low, and thus that they need protection.
Sorry, that's a non-starter for me. I see no need to pay twice as much as the rest of the world for shoes simply because these folks feel that they deserve it so much that they feel justified in forcing me to pay it. If they have a product worth buying, price- and quality-wise, I'll take a look, and if they don't, I won't. But either way, nobody has a "right" to force me to pay more than I otherwise should. That's simple theft, and I won't stand for it. Appeals to patriotism are simply shameful - I don't "owe" textile workers my money, any more than they "owe" me a shirt. And that's the bottom line for me.