Replies

Why would the CEO's what the people that buy the products they make not to have the money to buy them? Maybe they want people in third world countrys to be able to afford to buy?

Not saying this is right or wrong, but the logic here is this. People won't have the job building the products, but they will have the jobs of selling them, and or also research and development, and or marketing, etc.

To use an anaolgy, I lose my job building chairs, but my new jobs is to be a salesperson who sell the chairs that are now manufactered overseas, or my new job is to design new chairs, that will be manufactered overseas, or my new job is to create a marketing plan to sell those chairs to people. I.E. you lose the manufactering end, but get the job of selling or the like.

One crucial flaw, is that many companies, may simply sell there products over the internet, so that would further reduce jobs, but as the old saying goes, "If I banned farm equipment today, we would have thousands of new jobs tomorrow".

Yes,the talented few will make lemons out of lemonade,adapt and survive.
However,millions more who are less educated and less talented who would normally be gainfully employed and paying taxes are now out of work,filling the unemployment and welfare lines.In the past they would have filled the bulk of relatively well paying manufacturing jobs but now they are obselete.
If you are a believer in Social Darwinism then this is just the natural order of things.Personally,I think these trends,tho perhaps inevitable in a free market economy,is a real human tragedy.

Another flaw is that there's nothing to stop them from sending the R&D, marketing, and other functions overseas.

As for the macro view of who's going to buy these products in the long run, that's not a concern to the corporate managers. Next year is long term to them. Five years is a lifetime. By the time these chickens come home to roost, they'll have taken their golden parachutes and be playing golf every day. Damned few people in Corporate America think strategically any more.

Free market capitalism is not an immutable Law of the Universe. People will support it only so long as they perceive it to be beneficial to them....and that includes Freepers, as some of these threads have shown.

When the majority--or even a substantial minority--of people believe that this system no longer serves their interest....Watch Out.

What Adam Smith meant by Free Trade was modern
nations like England and France dropping
their barries between them.
He did not mean lets drop all our barries
so a slave nation like China can use slave
labor to drive our manufacturing industries
out of business.
In order to maintain a working free market
you have to restrict trade form slave nations
China, just like to protect the market you
must forbid fraud. Its alll part of the Rule
of Law needed to keeps markets working.
Free Enterprise is about Freedom with Responsiblity
that is Liberty, not dog eat dog law of the jungle
which would ultimately destroy the workings of markets.

We are not talking about holding back progress,
we are not talking about industries going away
because their products have been replaced by others
due not inventions or improved technology.