"Buy American" is UN-American?

[Deleted]

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

Well that would be the end result though. The synergy different nations get through international trade is vital for their success. Especially for smaller countries.

[Bearshield]

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.

It's not about patriotism, it's about local economy. Every time you buy something from another country over your own, that's money your country is losing. When local businesses lose money to foreign businesses, they cut jobs, which means now your country's unemployment rate just went up. It's all connected and it's ignorant to think think that supporting your own country's economy is blind patriotism and not beneficial.

I'm not saying that I never buy foreign made goods. In this country it's impossible not to because quite frankly, you would be hard pressed to find a whole lot in your home that is made in the USA anymore. I'm not saying that buying something from another country is a bad thing or that it makes you a bad person. I am saying that there is most definitely benefit to buying local over foreign when possible and patriotism has NOTHING to do with it. Some of the best economies in the world right now have high import taxes, ensuring their people buy local goods whenever possible.

[Deleted]

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

The problem is that China is not the only purchaser of US debt. It can basicly monetise it itself (sell it to itself - i.e. print the difference).

Trade with China does not have to be even at all, but in the long run the overall import/export should not grow infinitely when including trade with all international partners. The problem with the trade deficit is that it only calculates trade, but not Chinese investment in US corporations for example - which also brings dollars back and is equally beneficial.

Also, for the Ayn Rand scenario of free trade, minimum wage does not have to be abolished (altough I support that). USA does not have to do any $1/hour cheap labour work at all. It can import all those low-skills services/products from foreigners. This allows the majority of US workforce to focus on producing medium-high skill products/services. Both foreigners and Americans win.

Those Reagan talking point makes no real economic sense, as it makes the worker worse off. Sure, he will have a higher paying job thanks to the protections that the tariffs brings. But at the same time everything he has to buy suddenly becomes much more expensive as he must purchase it from inefficient domestic producers.

For a consuming nation the perfect scenario is if all low-skill work is being performed by foreigners and all high-skill work performed by the nation.

---------- Post added 2011-07-12 at 04:51 PM ----------

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.

Just because it's name says something doesn't mean the content is that. Just like the Patriot act had nothing to do with Patriotism.
NAFTA consists of over 1000 pages with all sorts of exceptions, environmental and labour regulations, that hurt the USA as a whole.
If NAFTA was to only provide free trade then it wouldn't have to be much longer than 1 page.

[Felya]

Also, for the Ayn Rand scenario of free trade, minimum wage does not have to be abolished (altough I support that). USA does not have to do any $1/hour cheap labour work at all. It can import all those low-skills services/products from foreigners. This allows the majority of US workforce to focus on producing medium-high skill products/services. Both foreigners and Americans win.

But that means US looses all low level jobs and will depend entirely on importing. If we do nothing but import, because we have no low level production jobs, how do we pay for it? What do you think the unemployment numbers be, if US had only mid level jobs?

Those Reagan talking point makes no real economic sense, as it makes the worker worse off. Sure, he will have a higher paying job thanks to the protections that the tariffs brings. But at the same time everything he has to buy suddenly becomes much more expensive as he must purchase it from inefficient domestic producers.

The thing that makes them inefficient is the fact that they get payed more and the fact that they have a higher quality of living. So, you agree that US needs to either lower the average standard of living by either getting rid of the minimum wage or remove all jobs that are low level?

For a consuming nation the perfect scenario is if all low-skill work is being performed by foreigners and all high-skill work performed by the nation.

But, there are very few mid level jobs compared to low level jobs. We have a 10%+ unemployment when both mid level and low level solutions are available. If you make all these people unemployed, what happens to America?

Just because it's name says something doesn't mean the content is that. Just like the Patriot act had nothing to do with Patriotism.
NAFTA consists of over 1000 pages with all sorts of exceptions, environmental and labour regulations, that hurt the USA as a whole.
If NAFTA was to only provide free trade then it wouldn't have to be much longer than 1 page.

It didn't create free trade over all. It created free trade in some sectors. The reason why it has free trade in it's name, is because it has free trade provisions. No one is saying it's an absolute free trade agreement, it's quite clear though, that it did introduce free trade policies to certain sections of trade with Canada and Mexico. The fact that it wasn't absolute, does not change the fact that it did apply it to some.

Here is something kinda funny. Patriot act was named this way to gain support, which worked for a time. NAFTA was abbreviated, to hide Free Trade, because at the time it was very unpopular. Because people believed it would cost America jobs. Those low level jobs you don't think US should have anyway. Google the SNL sketch about it, it features Rob Schneider in a sombrero. (Side note, my memory is awesome!)

[Wells]

Also, for the Ayn Rand scenario of free trade, minimum wage does not have to be abolished (altough I support that). USA does not have to do any $1/hour cheap labour work at all. It can import all those low-skills services/products from foreigners. This allows the majority of US workforce to focus on producing medium-high skill products/services. Both foreigners and Americans win.

Just because you got rid of the low wage jobs that doesn't mean all those unemployed people are now going to score mid-wage jobs dude.

---------- Post added 2011-07-12 at 05:15 PM ----------

The fact that it wasn't absolute, does not change the fact that it did apply it to some.

Well you are talking to someone who follows a fairly absolutist ideology.

[Sunseeker]

Those pesky "jobs", peh who needs 'em, I have my 100k teaching salary and my tenure and I write articles on how white people are destroying the world. We don't need all those low-end jobs.

Oh some people need them? nah we don't need those people either, let kill 'em off.

----
No seriously, I actually read an article that said just this(in no so many words), but yeah, it's downright disgusting what people who "have it made" think sometimes.

[Deleted]

But that means US looses all low level jobs and will depend entirely on importing. If we do nothing but import, because we have no low level production jobs, how do we pay for it? What do you think the unemployment numbers be, if US had only mid level jobs?

This has already happened, you just don't notice it. All the jobs that are considered "Low-level" by US standards are midlevel or higher by standards in Bangladesh. There are basicly none of the low-level jobs left in the US from a global point of view. It has been taken over by machines or labour in foreign countries.

If the foreign labour didn't exist, Americans would have to do it themselves instead of focusing on higher productivity work.

The thing that makes them inefficient is the fact that they get payed more and the fact that they have a higher quality of living. So, you agree that US needs to either lower the average standard of living by either getting rid of the minimum wage or remove all jobs that are low level?

They are inefficient mostly because they require higher pay, yes. Does this mean that those workers should suddenly start accepting $1/hour wages and do the same job? No. They should simply find a job that can compete without protectionism, that is all.

You're again only focusing on the seen, but not at the unseen. Sure, the workers that work for the industry that is protected by the tariffs will have a higher standard of living. But this higher standard of living comes at the cost of the rest of the economy who now has to pay more for the same products because they cannot buy them from Foreign producers.

But, there are very few mid level jobs compared to low level jobs. We have a 10%+ unemployment when both mid level and low level solutions are available. If you make all these people unemployed, what happens to America?

What happened to those jobs that disappeared when machines rendered their labour useless? It basicly allows them to move to higher-productivity jobs. And most low-level service sector jobs will still remain. You can't serve food in an US restaurant from Taiwan.

It didn't create free trade over all. It created free trade in some sectors. The reason why it has free trade in it's name, is because it has free trade provisions. No one is saying it's an absolute free trade agreement, it's quite clear though, that it did introduce free trade policies to certain sections of trade with Canada and Mexico. The fact that it wasn't absolute, does not change the fact that it did apply it to some.

Here is something kinda funny. Patriot act was named this way to gain support, which worked for a time. NAFTA was abbreviated, to hide Free Trade, because at the time it was very unpopular. Because people believed it would cost America jobs. Those low level jobs you don't think US should have anyway. Google the SNL sketch about it, it features Rob Schneider in a sombrero.

Agree on both parts, and NAFTA did cost America jobs as far as I'm aware. But applying free trade for some but not for others can have some really bad consequences. Just like giving taxcuts to certain companies instead of giving it to everyone.

[Felya]

Those pesky "jobs", peh who needs 'em, I have my 100k teaching salary and my tenure and I write articles on how white people are destroying the world. We don't need all those low-end jobs. Oh some people need them? nah we don't need those people either, let kill 'em off.----No seriously, I actually read an article that said just this(in no so many words), but yeah, it's downright disgusting what people who "have it made" think sometimes.

If you could find it, I'd like to read it. Pm it if you find it, much thanks!

[Deleted]

I buy locally as well, I go the windmill around the corner and buy my bread and grains and everything there. Buy my vegetables and (some) fruits from farmers (Also Honey, it's so good!) nearby. Can't really say I'd care if free trade suffers under it.

[Felya]

This has already happened, you just don't notice it. All the jobs that are considered "Low-level" by US standards are midlevel or higher by standards in Bangladesh. There are basicly none of the low-level jobs left in the US from a global point of view. It has been taken over by machines or labour in foreign countries.

Yes, and the unemployment rate is 10+%, it doesn't appear as though those higher level jobs are enough to be available for every American. it also seems, that if more lower level jobs are lost, there will be even more unemployment. What do we do with over 10+% of Americans who don't have jobs already?

If the foreign labour didn't exist, Americans would have to do it themselves instead of focusing on higher productivity work.

What is wrong with being self sustaining? It creates jobs...

They are inefficient mostly because they require higher pay, yes. Does this mean that those workers should suddenly start accepting $1/hour wages and do the same job? No. They should simply find a job that can compete without protectionism, that is all.

Where are these jobs? How do we get the 10+% of already unemployed, those jobs? Do we simply accept that a large portion of the US will be without a job or money?

You're again only focusing on the seen, but not at the unseen. Sure, the workers that work for the industry that is protected by the tariffs will have a higher standard of living. But this higher standard of living comes at the cost of the rest of the economy who now has to pay more for the same products because they cannot buy them from Foreign producers.

If the higher standard of living in the US has to level down to those of our competition in China and India, is it worth the price of Americans living conditions be that low? I do not mean capital cities, but the entire country.

I personally do not support America turning into China or India as far as peoples living conditions are. That's not America...

What happened to those jobs that disappeared when machines rendered their labour useless? It basicly allows them to move to higher-productivity jobs. And most low-level service sector jobs will still remain. You can't serve food in an US restaurant from Taiwan.

In US, I use self check outs and vending machines, so those jobs are not safe from robots either. What can I say, I'm anti-social. If nothing else, the fact that robots are taking over, should mean we need the lower level jobs that make the robots. Before a robot is build to build another robot, we need people to build the original robot. If our economy has no low level manufacturing jobs, we do not have the ability to produce robots. We win the robot fight, if we are the ones manufacturing the robot that builds other robots. No disrespect meant to our future robot over lords.

[hellosaltygoodness]

well i am a canadian who supports buying non-canadian at all times. because i despise canadian companies passionately. so i do my best to never give them any money -_-

i am... the ANTI-PATRIOT

[Deleted]

Yes, and the unemployment rate is 10+%, it doesn't appear as though those higher level jobs are enough to be available for every American. it also seems, that if more lower level jobs are lost, there will be even more unemployment. What do we do with over 10+% of Americans who don't have jobs already? ... Where are these jobs? How do we get the 10+% of already unemployed, those jobs? Do we simply accept that a large portion of the US will be without a job or money?

Much of that 10% unemployment will disappear as soon as the government allows the economy to breathe again. You should not accept a perpetual 10% unemployment. 5% unemployment is roughly the "normal" number.

What is wrong with being self sustaining? It creates jobs...

Self-sustainability is only good from a national-security point of view (which I think is ridiculous). It does not serve the general interest of the American people to force the creation of low-productivity jobs in the US.

Also, simply creating jobs for the sake of having them is not good. Full employment is not a good goal - full production is.

If the higher standard of living in the US has to level down to those of our competition in China and India, is it worth the price of Americans living conditions be that low? I do not mean capital cities, but the entire country. I personally do not support America turning into China or India as far as peoples living conditions are. That's not America...

You misunderstood the whole quote. If I put a tariff on the mining industry, all US mining companies could charge much higher prices for their products. This would mean the standard of living of all miners would also rise. BUT, this raise in standards of living for one group of people would come at the expense of a decrease in standards of living for everyone else. All products that depend on products from mines would now become more expensive. If all industries were protected by tariffs, the increase in overall prices of everything would mean the whole nation would suffer.

In US, I use self check outs and vending machines, so those jobs are not safe from robots either. What can I say, I'm anti-social. If nothing else, the fact that robots are taking over, should mean we need the lower level jobs that make the robots. Before a robot is build to build another robot, we need people to build the original robot. If our economy has no low level manufacturing jobs, we do not have the ability to produce robots. We win the robot fight, if we are the ones manufacturing the robot that builds other robots. No disrespect meant to our future robot over lords.

Building robots is not a low-level job. Plowing a field manually instead of with a tractic is a low level job. But some jobs low-level service jobs will always exist in a nation no matter how wealthy.

[Exauras]

At this time, no one really buys American just to do so. Buying American, in terms of cars and big budget items, is more ingrained into a person as a want. They're buying a Ford because they believe that's what they want.

Ultimately, unless you're ordering something directly, pretty much everything you buy supports America. Foreign companies with products here see their money change hands many times before they actually see the profits. You're buying that made in Taiwan T-shirt from Wal-Mart, but that's helping Wal-Mart expand and provide new jobs for Americans.

[Felya]

Much of that 10% unemployment will disappear as soon as the government allows the economy to breathe again. You should not accept a perpetual 10% unemployment. 5% unemployment is roughly the "normal" number.

Where are these jobs going to come from? If we are loosing low level jobs, how do we have mid level jobs and why can't China or India provide the same? All you are saying is that mid level jobs will appear, but they haven't been. There is nothing in what you are saying that will create mid level jobs. There is nothing in what you are saying that would return jobs from China.

Self-sustainability is only good from a national-security point of view (which I think is ridiculous). It does not serve the general interest of the American people to force the creation of low-productivity jobs in the US.

Well, we will have to disagree. If US could produce everything it consumes and everyone has a job, I think we are in good shape. Yes, this is very nationalist, but I am solely talking about the health of what I consider America, the common working man or the majority of the people. So it seems appropriate.

Also, simply creating jobs for the sake of having them is not good. Full employment is not a good goal - full production is.

If everyone has a job, I am happy. If you want to aim higher, all power to you. I do not see how that's possible if US not only has to create more jobs then it has, but also make these jobs higher level.

You misunderstood the whole quote. If I put a tariff on the mining industry, all US mining companies could charge much higher prices for their products. This would mean the standard of living of all miners would also rise. BUT, this raise in standards of living for one group of people would come at the expense of a decrease in standards of living for everyone else. All products that depend on products from mines would now become more expensive. If all industries were protected by tariffs, the increase in overall prices of everything would mean the whole nation would suffer.

But, if we all have a higher standard of living, we can afford the prices. The prices are a problem when standard of living drops. The best example of this in the US is the cost of living price increase while the pay of the majority remained the same. This causes people to spend less, thus depending on imports if they are cheaper or just spending less. This causes companies to produce less or demand less regulations such as minimum wage, to match lower demand or lower prices. This is where you have lay offs and perpetuate the cycle or turn American way of life into that of China and India. In US, buying isn't as much of an issue as the amount of money that makes it to the consumer to be able to buy. Removing regulations, simply lowers the quality of life of the common worker in favor of boosting business.

This has also nothing to do with classes, unless your class does not benefit by having a higher standard of living for majority of American people. But then, to do something that would lower the quality of life of majority of Americans, seems wrong to me. It's like a scale and at this point in US history, the majority of US isn't doing as good as they used to. To fight it, lowering the standards of living even more, seems counter productive.

Building robots is not a low-level job. Plowing a field manually instead of with a tractic is a low level job. But some jobs low-level service jobs will always exist in a nation no matter how wealthy.

But, the building of robots part is also cheaper in India and China. Those are the jobs that pay comparably nothing to what they are in the US. Because in US, the minimum wage regulations, the unemployment benefits regulations, the employer based health coverage regulation, the workers rights regulations, the safety regulation of the worker and the consumer, all cost money. That is why business would flourish under the Rand model, but the majority of people would have to accept living conditions that are equal to the cheapest manufacturer. Under the Rand model, there is no reason to pay mid level jobs in the US, when even those are cheaper in India and China. The only way to beat the likes of China and India in the Rand model, is to pay less to American workers then their counterparts.

In your model, we will for ever be dependent on China for lower end jobs. Lower level jobs like plowing fields for what I am assuming is food. Food gathering is the lowest level job you can get. If we have to depend on imports for food, US is in a bit of trouble. Don't you think? Hypothetically, let's pretend the robot future is not so absolute, so automated food gathering is not yet imminent.

[Deleted]

If everyone has a job, I am happy. If you want to aim higher, all power to you. I do not see how that's possible if US not only has to create more jobs then it has, but also make these jobs higher level.

I don't have time to answer the rest right now (mostly because you're not reading what I'm saying), but I just want to adress this:

Full employment is not a good goal to strive for. I could achieve full employment if I was a dictator right now.
You can have full employment but only 10% production. When you are close to full production, employment will be roughly 5% because of structural unemployment that should simply be accepted.

[Felya]

Full employment is not a good goal to strive for. I could achieve full employment if I was a dictator right now.
You can have full employment but only 10% production. When you are close to full production, employment will be roughly 5% because of structural unemployment that should simply be accepted.

If you were a dictator the issue changes from unemployment to you being a dictator. What do you mean by 10% of production? What do you mean by 'full production' and employment of 5%? I don't understand what your percentages are supposed to mean exactly. If employment is 5% are you saying unemployment would be 95% when production is 'full'?

[Deleted]

If you were a dictator the issue changes from unemployment to you being a dictator. What do you mean by 10% of production? What do you mean by 'full production' and employment of 5%? I don't understand what your percentages are supposed to mean exactly. If employment is 5% are you saying unemployment would be 95% when production is 'full'?

Full production is a mythical unicorn where society produces at it's full theoretical capacity. It's probably impossible to reach it but you can get very close and very far away from it.

Basicly: Full employment (everyone has a job regardless of it's nature) does not mean society is better off.

[Zdrasti]

Buying local is extremely important when it comes to honey. It's a great way to boost your immune system =)

[Felya]

I don't have time to answer the rest right now (mostly because you're not reading what I'm saying), but I just want to adress this:

I think it's pointless to say things like that and it just perpatuates internet barking. If you think I did not read it, please clear it up. I assure you that I read it, but I guess misunderstood. Feel free to explain in detail when you get the chance. I explain things over and over again, not because I don't think you read it or because of some other negative assumption, but because I think I can phrase it better so you would understand. Blaming the reader's reading is pointless, as it does nothing to actually making your point more palpable. On a frum, shouldn't the point be to convey your point as clearly as possible to the vast variety of people who are reading, instead of finding flaws in the reader to disregard them?

---------- Post added 2011-07-12 at 08:35 PM ----------

Full production is a mythical unicorn where society produces at it's full theoretical capacity. It's probably impossible to reach it but you can get very close and very far away from it.

Basicly: Full employment (everyone has a job regardless of it's nature) does not mean society is better off.

I am sorry if I wasn't clear. I need you to tell me what your terms meant. I realize you do not mean full employment means society is better off, read and understand that point. What I need is clarification on why. In your explanation I did not understand, what you meant by 10% production. What did you mean by 'full production' and employment of 5%? I still don't understand what your percentages are supposed to mean exactly. If employment is 5% are you saying unemployment would be 95% when production is 'full'?

[Deleted]

I am sorry if I wasn't clear. I need you to tell me what your terms meant. I realize you do not mean full employment means society is better off, read and understand that point. What I need is clarification on why. In your explanation I did not understand, what you meant by 10% production? What did you mean by 'full production' and employment of 5%? I still don't understand what your percentages are supposed to mean exactly. If employment is 5% are you saying unemployment would be 95% when production is 'full'?

Okay, imagine this: Government votes to give everyone who is unemployed a job to sit around doing nothing for $10/day.

How is that good?

Also, I meant that 5% unemployment is the optimal. That 5% is the result of structural unemployment - basicly people who are changing jobs, or lost theirs because their profession has become useless thanks to technology (and now need time to find a new profession).