But then you'd be the King of Durham.

Sorry, but as long as money is king, people and companies (at least the majority of them) will buy from the cheapest labor. This is just a fact. I believe morally and ethically deplorable, but it still remains the fact

Your 5th paragraph is the core flaw in your house of illogical cards.

Imported goods are usually cheaper. And if they aren't cheaper in PRICE, then the USA seller is getting a lower margin. Your actions would drive out the overseas goods, and the USA sellers would increase their price (because that's what the shareholders demand or they will invest in a company overseas that have better margins).

Secondly, what car that you own was imported? Really. Imported?

Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Volkswagen -- they all assemble in USA.

Did you know they have their own North America HQ's in USA and they employ thousands? And their supply base for USA is even larger. And this is just for automotive, but you can cascade this for the other industries also.

My paycheck is from a global company (like most are) that has its holding group out of the UK where they pay taxes. Do you want them to go away and shut them out even though the product is designed partially in Germany, USA, and China? The products are launched globally so the components are sub-produced in India, Mexico, USA, Germany, South Africa, Korea, and then consolidated and distributed to the final assembly location that is nearest to the end customer.

Really, life is too complex for your close minded ideals.

@ ssorenn

"I believe morally and ethically deplorable, but it still remains the fact"

Well, we can do something about it by taking serious steps to revive American manufacturing, as I previously described.

@ ag

"And if they aren't cheaper in PRICE, then the USA seller is getting a lower margin. Your actions would drive out the overseas goods, and the USA sellers would increase their price"

I dispute that. American manufacturing is dying because we're getting under-cut by foreign manufacturers (and in many areas, strangled from within by organized labor). If a US manufacturer jacked up their prices in response to a sudden absence of foreign competition (essentially price-gouging), then that US manufacturer would still face domestic competition. Maybe not at first, but it wouldn't take long for another US manufacturer to figure out how to do it better and cheaper.

"Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Volkswagen -- they all assemble in USA. Did you know they have their own North America HQ's in USA and they employ thousands? And their supply base for USA is even larger. And this is just for automotive, but you can cascade this for the other industries also."

*Assembled*. As you correctly implied earlier, everyone (regardless of nationality of their corporate headquarters) builds their engines in Mexico or Japan and assembles them either here or in Canada. GM, Ford, and Chrysler do the exact same shit. I would venture to guess that a modern car (irrespective of manufacturer) has parts from no fewer than half a dozen countries. But the end result is still America getting economically screwed. Why merely assemble a car here when we have the capability to build the whole car from scratch? I would even assert that a 100% American sourced car (or other product) would be more reliable than a piecemeal car because you have well-rested and adequately motivated workers (on a reasonable 40-hour week) putting things together, instead of some poor exhausted third world bastard who hits the 40-hour mark by Wednesday just to put food on the table.

"Really, life is too complex for your close minded ideals."

I wouldn't be opposed to American participation in economic globalization, except for the simple fact that we are losing and losing badly.

"to American participation in economic globalization, except for the simple fact that we are losing and losing badly."

I don't think so

Oh dear, oh dear, where do I begin.

First off, GF, I would advise you read Russell Roberts' book, The Choice. Should take no longer than an afternoon.

"I would even assert that a 100% American sourced car (or other product) would be more reliable than a piecemeal car"

Then why were American made cars getting absolutely trashed by foreign competition in the 1970s and 1980s? Japan was producing better cars, and cheaper. Period. Why would you prevent Americans from buying them?

Also, lets say hypothetically that Americans could produce everything cheaper than foreign producers. *Even then* it would be beneficial to outsource to other countries, because if we tried to make everything, we would be inefficiently allocating our resources. For every dollar invested into automotive production, that's less money that could be invested into, say, pharmaceuticals. For every additional worker we employ in the production of steel, that's less workers we have to help produce something else.

If America tries to produce everything it consumes, it will end up consuming less and have inferior quality goods. This is absolutely basic trade economics. Like back to Adam Smith.

Also GF, national debt and trade deficit are two completely different things. Trade deficit is financed by an outflow of capital, not government expenditures.

Meh. The automotive industry is important, but if you want a global star, look at Caterpillar.

The problem is that our economy is moving away from manufacturing, and the population isn't ready to take advantage because our education system has been farked for almost 40 years thanks to Prop 13 (and similar measures) and the strangulation of public school systems.

"Why merely assemble a car here when we have the capability to build the whole car from scratch?" -- what possible motive is there to build a whole car from scratch in the USA?

There are hundreds of millions of dollars to buy the machinery and equipment to produce a large amount of global components and vehicles. And you expect the Manufacturing companies to duplicate (multiple times) this for the USA, and then each Country?

Dude, think about it. You're going to quadruple (or more) the up front cash investment and at the exact same time reduce the quantity of units to be produced on each investment.

This is my profession is to optimize these types of things for manufacturing.

If you truely want an idea of where we(The USA) stand in the global economy, all you need do is look at the dollar. With our current zero to .25% fed funds rate, our monetary base is exceding just about the entire world currency's. Why, Demand.

Unfortunately, that's largely because Wall Street has become so capable at manipulating markets and skimming any excess off for themselves. They don't produce a damned thing, but they reap much of the benefits. We excel at creating financial traps for others. USA! USA! USA!

One can only manipulate markets for so long before they bubble and crash, but this has nothing to do with the fact that the usa is front and center in the global Economy. We are in debt up to our chins to the Chinese, who own more than a trillion dollars of our debt. We are still number one, and it will remain that way, long past any of our lives.

Owe a little and the bank owns you.
Owe a lot and you own the bank.

Qualify a little and a lot.

What's a little to you isn't even a pittance to the bank, and what's a lot to you is still a pittance to the bank.

It's not my truism, but you hear it all the time. See also, "Too big to fail."

The fact that the U.S. owes China so much money, coupled with the linkage between the dollar and the renminbi, means that our status at the most important economy in the world will remain for some time.

But yes, on an individual level, very few people hold that type of clout. Sometimes large institutions do wield substantial influence over their debt holders.

So what about the difference between reality and the 'ideal' or prefered income inequality??

You can argue about how to fix the problem all you want; but do you (Americans) all agree that there is a problem?

And GF you seem to think the American economy is going down the toilet, but there is still GDP growth, right? The destruction of the middle class may be an example of income inequality, and globalisation may be the cause, but that doesn't mean they are ruining the economy - the Dollar is doing well, especially compared with the next biggest currency. US companies are doing well, but income inequality is getting worse.

If you ask me, i'd say paying for the suggested health care, housing and food, could be done by taxing corporate profits. Though that does amount to a mixed socialist-capitalist economy - so may never happen in the US... Hence why i was asking what Americans think.

orathaic - I think most people would admit that income inequality is a major problem. In fact, its the income equality of the 1950s that was a major driver of US growth at that time, not US industrial capacity.

Eat the rich

My actual comment is: with the degree that money has been shown to affect our government, and with the degree of inequality in this country, it has long since become clear to me that ours is not a democracy, and our "system" is not one worth defending. Any opportunity for reform or even revolution, you best believe I am on board. Better now than before it's too late and we're essential feudalist, or fascist, or some freaky combination of both.

#stillfuckthucy:))