On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 13:11:06 GMT, "Mike in Mystic"
wrote:

These type of discussions are interesting, but they puzzle me more and more.

The U.S. spends only about 15% of it's GDP on imports. That's it. Our
economy is way too big to rely on other countries to keep it going. These
examples of lost manufacturing jobs, low labor costs, IT being moved
overseas, etc. etc. really represent a tiny part of our economic picture.
The thing is, when two different markets have differing needs for goods, it
behooves both of them to have as free a trade arrangement as possible. Each
economy has limitations on production for various reasons (capacity
differences, labor costs, raw materials availability, etc. etc.). The
supply functions are complicated, which is something everyone seems to
ignore when they bitch about things like this. Consumers in all countries
have certain demand characterstics, and the economies of each country can
consume only so much at any given time. So, the US reducing production of
textiles, yet increasing exports of something else (and I know what you're
thinking - trade deficit) can, in actuality, benefit both countries. In
large, highly-skilled economies like the US it is natural for lower-skilled
and less technological jobs to be driven down and taken up by other
countries that have that ability. At the same time, highly specialized and
technology-driven industries (applied research, basic science-driven
things - drug development, medical equipment, etc.) are actually being
driven UP (I'm talking more than just price of goods - wages, # of jobs,
etc.). So, there ARE actually trade-offs here, and not all of them are
negative. In a free market these shifts in employment from blue-collar to
white-collar are not unexpected and, on the whole, are very small. Sure, to
the men and women that work in that textile factory it sucks big time. To
the cabinetmaker trying to compete with factory-made imported furniture,
it's tough. But, it isn't anything new. Craftsman-type work has always
been that way. The really successful ones were more like artists than
merely constructors of furnishings (I think a modern-day example of this is
Tom Plamann - do you really think that guy has a hard time putting food on
the table?).

My point is, these changes in particular industrial sectors is NOT a bad
thing OVERALL. In fact, in most cases these open trade situations are
better for everyone, including you and me. As one of the other posters put
it, (paraphrasing) pushing protectionist economic policy does nothing in the
long run except likely end up in a tariff battle and leads to depressed
economic vitality for everyone.

If you insist on making sense, you will not be welcome in this thread.