it is a new concept: produce us goods and sell us goods in the us. buy American. the damned have caused everyone to love a global economy. it sucks. it is insane. example: recycle metal... collect it... crush and bail it...sell it to china... ship it to china... china remakes it and adds 5000% value to it... build crappy metal stuff from it... sell It back to the dummies in usa...ship it back across the whole damned ocean...stockholders grin and laugh... dummies get their treasury check...suicidal global economy.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The false promise of "buy American"
- Thread starter cawacko
- Start date
". it sucks. it is insane." #81
Actually no.
It would have been SPECTACULARLY self-defeating, if it were originally a policy with selfish economic benefit as the primary objective.
It never was.
Instead it was conceived as a means of implementing global economic equality.
Instead of having 90% of the world's wealth in the control of 5% of the world's population; a more equitable distribution was imagined.
BUT !!
a) That means a net relative loss for the U.S., a price willingly agreed to at inception.
b) The transformation will take generations.
- First our well paying jobs go to Singapore. Then once the standard of living rises in Singapore,
- those well paying jobs go to Malaysia.
- etc.
If allowed to continue to completion (doubtful), your grandchildren will all have grave markers before it's complete.
It's a noble, charitable idea.
But it's at the cost of American wealth.
-----------------------------------
Doesn't make sense?
Some believe a driver of terrorism is such economic inequality.
Thus, a more equitable distribution of wealth was perceived as a means to neutralize the terrorist motive.
A steep price? Perhaps.
I'm not justifying or approving it. I'm explaining the thinking that went into the initial decision.
Actually no.
It would have been SPECTACULARLY self-defeating, if it were originally a policy with selfish economic benefit as the primary objective.
It never was.
Instead it was conceived as a means of implementing global economic equality.
Instead of having 90% of the world's wealth in the control of 5% of the world's population; a more equitable distribution was imagined.
BUT !!
a) That means a net relative loss for the U.S., a price willingly agreed to at inception.
b) The transformation will take generations.
- First our well paying jobs go to Singapore. Then once the standard of living rises in Singapore,
- those well paying jobs go to Malaysia.
- etc.
If allowed to continue to completion (doubtful), your grandchildren will all have grave markers before it's complete.
It's a noble, charitable idea.
But it's at the cost of American wealth.
-----------------------------------
Doesn't make sense?
Some believe a driver of terrorism is such economic inequality.
Thus, a more equitable distribution of wealth was perceived as a means to neutralize the terrorist motive.
A steep price? Perhaps.
I'm not justifying or approving it. I'm explaining the thinking that went into the initial decision.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
Sorry, unable to copy and paste from phone but this article hits on why Trump's promises or hopes that we buy more 'Made in America' isn't a reality and the downsides to our econony that come with it.
https://www.cato.org/blog/false-promise-buy-american
I didn't agree with that article. I think Cato got it wrong. Velocity matters.
Lightbringer
Loves Me Some Souls
Just to bump the conversation, Buy American isn't a false premise. It matters.