"Buy American" is UN-American?

[luccadeo]

Obama and his retinue hate America and capitalism. That is why you don't see them.

[Felya]

Obama and his retinue hate America and capitalism. That is why you don't see them.

So you think Rand is against capitalism? You sure about that?This thread has nothing to do with Obama, but is contrasting two conservative icons. I specifically used two conservative icons to avoid the brain dead partison crap. No Obama, no liberals, no socialism... It's Reagan vs Rand...

[Chrysia]

Everyone using the argument "when you buy Chinese, that money leaves the American system entirely," are ignoring the other point of the global economy. It goes both ways. We export massive amounts of things to China, mostly oil, coal, and food. They have the money to buy this from us primarily because we buy their goods in return.

[Felya]

If Reagan didn't support Harley Davidson, it would have caused the company to fold instead of buying time to catch up and lead the industry. The YouTube clip is Reagan talking to hundreds of American workers who would have lost jobs at that plant alone. His joke about '5' is even funny.

---------- Post added 2011-07-12 at 02:43 PM ----------

Everyone using the argument "when you buy Chinese, that money leaves the American system entirely," are ignoring the other point of the global economy. It goes both ways. We export massive amounts of things to China, mostly oil, coal, and food. They have the money to buy this from us primarily because we buy their goods in return.

The deficit shows that we spend a lot more on buying then we earn selling. To even it out, there is really two solutions. The Reagan way involved increasing tax on imports (Harley and sugar). The Rand way is to lower the price of our goods to those of China and India, while having a free trade market (NAFTA).

[ptwonline]

People complain about all the jobs going overseas and then call anyone who buys the more expensive, American-made goods fools.

When a product is made and sold in your home nation you are providing an income for the domestic retailers and the manufacturers. You support 2 sets of domestic jobs.

When a product is made overseas and sold in your home nation you are providing an income for domestic retailers and foreign manufacturers. You only support 1 set of domestic jobs.

Another argument is made that you only have limited funds to spend anyway, so the extra that you spent on a domestic item is wasted and that could have been spent buying more items, thus creating more jobs. This really isn't true. Think of it this way: you have $100 to spend on clothes and for going out to dinner. You buy $60 of foreign made clothes, half of which pays for the manufacture and shipping, and half for the retailing. The remaining $40 is spent going for dinner. You have spent $70 that goes to pay domestic workers and $30 that goes to pay foreign workers.

Now imagine that you bought the more expensive, domestically made clothes instead. So intead of spending $60 you spent $70 on similar clothes but domestically made. You now can only afford a $30 dinner (I guess you and your date get the chicken fingers, not the steak). Congratulations: you have spent $100 supporting domestic workers and $0 supporting foreign workers. Yes, you get a bit less for your money as a consumer, but in the process you have helped create domestic jobs which will improve the domestic economy and provide more tax revenue meaning that you either get more services or lower taxes or both.

Yes, that is an oversimplified example.

People confuse patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism is more of an admiration for a way of life and the willingness to defend it. So you will do what is best (in this case for your country). Nationalism is the feeling that your way of life and ideas and ideals are superior to others, which tends to lead people to try to impose their morality on others. Nationalists usually mistakenly call themselves patriots (the recent Tea Party movement is a great example of this). Buying domestic goods to support your country is patriotism. Adhering to a capitalist philosophy because you believe that is a founding tenet of your society is more of an example of nationalism.

[Deleted]

Any kind of "buy local", "buy American" or in my case "buy Canadian" is a populist bullshit slogans aimed at uneducated overly patriotic morons. Nothing is more harmful to the free market economy then protectionism.

Oh hai thair.

I've heard you had a job where you were making canadian stuff. But your fee is too dam' expensive duh, and the stuff you're making would be cheaper if some chinese political prisoner would making it instead of you.

Too bad, you're fired.

Have a nice day being some internationalist capitalist (or should I say anarchist liberal) thinking the world is safe as a sandbox and that there's a square guardian looking at you while you're playing in order to protect and defend you against what children usually find in a square's sandbox. Like old junky's syringes, used condoms, and dog shit (wich is, you'll agree, an accurate metaphor about world economy).

From some "uneducated overly patriotic moron"


Oh, by the way...You got some sort of MBA, didn't you?

LOL.

[ptwonline]

Everyone using the argument "when you buy Chinese, that money leaves the American system entirely," are ignoring the other point of the global economy. It goes both ways. We export massive amounts of things to China, mostly oil, coal, and food. They have the money to buy this from us primarily because we buy their goods in return.

This ignores the critical point that the exchange is vastly uneven. The US trade deficit with China is HUGE. The USA sells a pittance of things to China compared to what they buy back. I can sell you a piece of wood for $5. You carve it into a decorated railing and sell it back to me for $20. Yes, there was a two way exhange, but clearly there is a winner and a loser here. You have a net $15 gain, and I have a net $15 loss. Now change "you" to "China" and "me" to "USA".

[Deleted]

If buying locally can kill the global market, hey, I'm all for that!

That means third world nations will go back into absolute poverty, because they are dependant on international trade.

Likewise western nations would take a deep dive, and you'll see well paid white collar jobs turning back into knitting sweaters at low pay. Also without the global market many developed nations would not be able to get oil.

The only reason you would support killing the global market is if you want the world to go back towards being less developed for some ecological extremist reasons.

[artemishunter1]

So I was thinking about the 'Buy American' campaigns of Reagan's 80's, as exemplified by Harley Davidson:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa032.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHE5ym6ShkA

I was thinking how during an economic crisis, it's a bit strange not seeing those campaigns this time around, with how it was in late 80s and early 90s.

After a bit of searching around I stumbled on this:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServ...m_buy_american

So, which do you find to be a better opinion for America on "Buy American"? The Reagan, buy American to support our industry or Ayn Rand, buying American is against fundamentals of America via the free market?

---

To those who do not trust or can't view ayanrand.org, here are the contents. Not doing the same to the Reagan link as even this makes the post absurdly long.

By Harry Binswanger, Ph.D.

According to a recent poll, 80% of Americans think it their patriotic duty to give preference to American-made products. But "Buy American" is wholly un-American in both its economics and its philosophy.


America's distinction among all the nations of the world is that it enshrined political and economic freedom. Although we have departed greatly from our original laissez-faire principles, to the whole world America still symbolizes capitalism. Americanism means understanding that a free market, domestically and internationally, is the only path to general prosperity.


International trade is not mortal combat but a form of cooperation, a means of expanding worldwide production. The benefits of international trade flow to both trading partners, even when one of the countries is more efficient across the board. This is the "Law of Comparative Advantage," covered in every economics textbook. Free trade does not destroy but creates employment.


The lucrative workings of free markets do not depend upon lines drawn on a map. The economic advantages of international commerce are the same as those of interstate, intercity, and crosstown commerce. And if we kept crosstown trade accounts, the "trade deficits" that would appear would be as meaningless as are our international "trade deficits." Fact confirms theory: the U.S. ran a trade "deficit" practically every year of the nineteenth century, the time of our most rapid economic progress.


Philosophically, Americanism means individualism. Individualism holds that one's personal identity, moral worth, and inalienable rights belong to one as an individual, not as a member of a particular race, class, nation, or other collective.


But collectivism is the premise of "Buy American." In purchasing goods, we are expected to view ourselves and the sellers not as individuals, but as units of a nation. We are expected to accept lower quality or more expensive goods in the name of alleged benefits to the national collective.
Most "Buy American" advocates are motivated by misplaced patriotism. But for some the motive is a collectivist hostility towards foreigners. This xenophobic attitude is thoroughly un-American; it is plain bigotry.


Giving preference to American-made products over German or Japanese products is the same injustice as giving preference to products made by whites over those made by blacks. Economic nationalism, like racism, means judging men and their products by the group from which they come, not by merit.
Collectivism reflects the notion that life is "a zero sum game," that we live in a dog-eat-dog world, where one man's gain is another man's loss. On this premise, everyone has to cling to his own herd and fight all the other herds for a share of a fixed, static, supply of goods. And that is exactly the premise of the "Buy American" campaign. "It's Japan or us," is the implication. If Japan is getting richer, then we must be getting poorer.
But individualism recognizes that wealth is produced, not merely appropriated, and that man's rise from the cave to the skyscraper demonstrates that life is not a zero-sum game—not where men are free to seek progress.


Accordingly, individualism holds that the interests of men do not conflict—provided we are speaking of self-supporting individuals who pay for what they get. Where there is free trade, the exchange of value for value, one man's gain is another man's gain.


The same harmony of men's interests applies in the international arena. One nation's enrichment raises the standard of living of all other nations with which it trades. Which nation adds more to your standard of living: Japan or Bangladesh? And how would you fare if Japan were suddenly reduced to the economic level of Bangladesh?


The patriotic advocates of buying American would be shocked to learn that the economic theory underlying their viewpoint is Marxism. In describing the influx of Japanese products and investment, they don't use the Marxist terminology of "imperialism" and "exploitation," but the basic idea is the same: capitalistic acts are destructive and free markets will impoverish you. It's the same anti-capitalist nonsense whether it is used by leftists to attack the United States for its commerce with Latin America or by supposed patriots to attack Japan for its commerce with the United States.


Contrary to Marxism, one does not benefit from the poverty or incompetence of others. It is in your interest that other men—in every country—be smart, ambitious, and productive, not stupid, lazy, or incompetent. Would you be better off if Thomas Edison had been dim-witted? Nothing is changed if we substitute a Japanese inventor for Edison.


More and better production is good for all men, everywhere. What's good for Toyota is good for America. That's individualism, and that's Americanism.
Government interference with free trade is un-American. Sacrificing one's standard of living in order to subsidize inefficient domestic producers is un-American. The tribal fear of foreigners is un-American. Resentment at others' success is un-American.
A patriotic American acts as a capitalist and an individualist: he buys the best, wherever it may be found.

an individual has the right to participate in the free market. meaning he can buy stuff wherver he can get good deals out of. but that does not necessary apply to gov't spending since, they are tax dollars, which are designed to be spent on the american people i.e. american businesses. take the recent stimulus package, since its tax dollars gov't has to buy american goods, since it was designed to regenerate american economy, not canadian or rest of the worlds. it was a spending with condition. your example with toyota cars is bad, since toyota also makes car goods in the u.s. so, yeh offcourse, whats good for toyota will be good for america. but this does not apply to all businesses. why is tribal fear of foreigners are un american, care to enlighen me? resentment of others success is condition of all humans, does envy rings a bell with you? you know the seven deadly sin. having it is not un american. it just makes you human.

[Deathsenemy]

Unions are why we dont see "Buy America" anymore. Why you might ask? Simple. They expect US based companies to pay the employees overly high wages with crazy benifits, thus causing the said product to be higher in cost. These workers in turn know they are protected by the union, thus the work is inferior. This does not relate to ALL unions, but a majority. Ive seen some unions actually work hard for the employees and keep the taxpayer/business in mind.

[Deleted]

This ignores the critical point that the exchange is vastly uneven. The US trade deficit with China is HUGE. The USA sells a pittance of things to China compared to what they buy back. I can sell you a piece of wood for $5. You carve it into a decorated railing and sell it back to me for $20. Yes, there was a two way exhange, but clearly there is a winner and a loser here. You have a net $15 gain, and I have a net $15 loss. Now change "you" to "China" and "me" to "USA".

Both are winners in your example because both benefitted from the trade. The trade deficit in itself is not bad at all, it's simply a sign of some other issue.

Americans give dollars in exchange for Chinese goods. USA gets tangible, real, goods. China get's "virtual" dollars. For China to actually benefit from the dollars, it must trade them with USA or with someone who plans on using them with USA.

In the case of China though, their central bank exchanges the dollars that the Exporters have for newly printed Chinese Yuan. This means the Chinese Central Bank has shitloads of dollars, which it uses to buy US Bonds with. The money does come back to the US, but in loans to the US government. The problem is not the deficit, but the huge debt.

[Ratboy]

I always laugh when I see the "Out of a Job Yet? Keep Buying Foreign!" on a vehicles that the majority of the parts are made outside of CAN/USA.

[Deathlulz]

nearly 100% of other countries who support nafta have a much stronger tradeing relationship with the countries that take advantage of nafta, then america. Most of the middle east oil exporting countries dont and wont trade with the us, other communist nations have imbargos on trade even. WE NO LONGER CHARGE TARIFFS ON IMPORTED GOODS.

What this means is we lose money both ways.

Free trade act served its purpose and its time for it to go away. The 80's republicans have tanked the economy long enough. Dont let clinton and the sentiment of a world economy utopia blind you from the world market's state today.

[Deleted]

nearly 100% of other countries who support nafta have a much stronger tradeing relationship with the countries then america. Most of the middle east oil exporting countries dont and wont trade with the us, other communist nations have imbargos on trade even. WE NO LONGER CHARGE TARIFFS ON IMPORTED GOODS.

What this means is we lose money both ways.

Free trade act served its purpose and its time for it to go away. The 80's republicans have tanked the economy long enough. Dont let clinton and the sentiment of a world economy utopia blind you from the world market's state today.

Nafta = Trade treaty =/= Free trade (No tariffs)

[Zecora]

That means third world nations will go back into absolute poverty, because they are dependant on international trade.

Likewise western nations would take a deep dive, and you'll see well paid white collar jobs turning back into knitting sweaters at low pay. Also without the global market many developed nations would not be able to get oil.

The only reason you would support killing the global market is if you want the world to go back towards being less developed for some ecological extremist reasons.

The usual absolutisms and ascribing of motives to everyone else, eh? Well, not like it was unexpected.

[Deathlulz]

Nafta = North American Free Trade Act

Yes it most certainly does equal free trade. LTP newb

[CJack14dt]

I have always been a big free trade advocate but years ago someone pointed out something to me about buying American that's kind of counter intuitive to the whole comparative advantage argument. Go out to your local grocery store or home store and look at common household items that have a generic counterpart and look where the two are made. The generics are very very often made in America and are cheaper whereas the big brands are made abroad. Comparative advantage trading works but only when the cheaper cost of being made abroad is passed along to the consumer. Through branding big brands have twisted this advantage by having lower costs to create but charging a premium to the end buyer for their branding. This is why people think generic is "the cheap stuff" instead of thinking the brand name of the same product is "the expensive stuff". Just wanted to point this out.

[Felya]

In the case of China though, their central bank exchanges the dollars that the Exporters have for newly printed Chinese Yuan. This means the Chinese Central Bank has shitloads of dollars, which it uses to buy US Bonds with. The money does come back to the US, but in loans to the US government. The problem is not the deficit, but the huge debt.

That means trade has to be even, China would not buy bonds to loan to US government, thus US government would not have the debt. The way to make trade even, can be done two ways:

1 - Rand - Buy which ever is cheapest. For this we must lower regulations, to have business have as much power as it does in leading producers like China and India. The first regulation that needs to go is minimum wage, as we can not make the same thing in US paying workers around 8 bucks an hour while our competition is paying 25 cents. You can't pay tech support around 10 bucks an hour when in India its around a buck. All worker protection and unions simply cannot exist, as they add to the price of manufacturing. Local government will need to adjust accordingly, as taxing 25 cents nets a lot less then taxing nearly 8 bucks. Unless you live in Manhattan, DC or entirety of Texas, no more road maintenance, no more relatively clean tap water and so on.

2 - Reagan - Buy American. To compete with lower prices we increase taxes on imports and out of US labor to even out the disparity between US and China/India. This uses the fact that US is the top consumer, as a result of our access to higher wages and quality of living. It could bring US work back to US, as it would cost the same and I believe if the price is the same, the American is better for business as you would be feeding the cow that gets you all the cheese. If done on a sliding scale, higher taxes on relatively cheaper goods, it could encourage third world to improve, as regardless their goods will cost the same due to imposed import taxes.

For a consumer nation, the perfect scenario is producing everything that you can consume. The more the scale shifts towards consuming and away from producing, the bigger the deficit. It's basically lower the consumption by lower living standards (Rand), thus reducing demand, or find another way to even the playing field (Reagan).

[anywherenotes]

Yesterday I was in Dorney Park. I was sitting there and mumbling to myself how expensive the food is. Than I remembered living in Russia - a place that was very good at keeping prices down. There was no place like Dorney Park in Russia, because there was no point for any developer to build one if they could only charge a set price for food, toys, etc. There was no point in building something grand, as you couldn't charge for it more than a simple place. There was no point in competition.

When you kill competition, you kill capitalism, and you kill America.

Having said that, if you don't like China, you should be able to not buy Chinese products. Just keep in mind that China isn't the only place hurt by removing them from competition for your dollar. The local companies don't need to try as hard, and so they won't.

[Felya]

Nafta = Trade treaty =/= Free trade (No tariffs)

North
American
Free
Trade
Agreement

It removed tariffs on a lot of the trade from Mexico and Canada. It's exactly what Free Trade is.