Prometheus wrote:

We also have an advantage in times of war, when international trade
becomes more complex and difficult. If we make most things inside of
our own borders, we have a renewable supply source for our armies.
This does not just include munitions, but things like cookpots, shoes,
clothing, and computers- along with anything else an army or our own
population requires.


The argument has been made that int'l trade makes war less likely, as
governments would be loath to lose that income. Firstly, that assumes that
governments act logically. Suuure they do :-). And secondly, such trade is
always going to have winners and losers - and sore losers can start wars.

So I'm agreeing with your statement. Int'l trade makes any country involved
in it more vulnerable in time of war. And it does not make war less likely.


In the 1950s, a guy could work in a manufacturing job and use that
money to buy a house, own a car, and support his family- while his
wife stayed at home and took care of the kids. (I don't care if women
are working or not- that's not my point.) Can we really say that the
rise of the "service economy" has improved the lives of the middle
class?

Very true. I grew up in such a household. My mother never even learned to
drive, nor did she want to. My father, a linotype operator, bought a new car
each year (for his old car and $600).

As I've said in other discussions, the loss of manufacturing jobs imposes a
heavy penalty on those of us without the education, intelligence, or
inclination to adapt to high-tech, 9-5, suit and tie, cubicle dwelling jobs.
And that's a good percentage of the population.

I've entered this discussion late, so if I'm repeating points that others have
recently made I apologize.

--
It's turtles, all the way down