Why is everyone so scared of the probability of an Islamic based party being democratically elected without fraud in the middle east? We should be embracing the fact it's democratic and fraud free and supporting whomever the people choose.
I realize the following is an extreme case but it is a real case and it occurred this week, not in the distant past. It may help you understand some of the concern and why people are less fearful of governments heading in the secular direction.
Oh please. Find an Occupy site where the cops didn't just crash in, trash the entire place, lead the protesters out like cattle without giving them time to gather their things, and then bitch about what a mess was made, and you might have a point.
By claiming protesters had no warnings regarding evictions you have clearly demonstrated an ignorance of recent events.
The Tea Party has been quite the thorn in the political establishment.
Which is why they started as a wing of one of the major political parties, were constantly guided by that party, and ended up giving that party quite a bit of wins in the 2010 elections. Yup, major thorn, that group.
The tea party's origins are in fiscal conservatism, that is not party centric. Fiscal conservatives exists in both major parties. The tea party heavily criticized the Bush administration and leaders of both parties. The tea party tried to avoid social issues to maintain its fiscal focus and bipartisan nature. Unfortunately it got co-opted. Occupy seems to be going down that same path. When you have a loose knit group with no real central organization you are vulnerable to being co-opted. This was the tea party weakness, and it is even more so the occupy movement weakness. Any large group of people can show up at some late date and claim they are part of the party/movement. Like the radical republicans, like the radical democrat activists and campers.
Unions are no more people than corporations. Union members are people, just like corporate employees.
Next time you want to make this asinine comparison, why not back it up by showing an instance in which the leadership of a corporation was chosen by the employees that work for it.
Many union leaders are no more accountable to members than many CEOs are accountable to boards of directors and shareholders. In theory they are accountable but in practice they are not. Union leaders are often professional administrators or organizers that never really worked in the trade like members. Like many CEOs, many union leaders protect and grow their organization, employees and members are just assets, dues paying machines. The later was learned from my father and grandfather, lifelong union workers.
Face it, union leaders are often corrupt and political insiders just like many CEOs. The fact remains that union leadership is part of the current system of corruption.
Its not that they are spending money on democratic candidates, its that they are morphing their message so that it is in line with and supporting the democratic party's political message and strategy for the current campaign season.
Care to post evidence of this?
Did you miss the only let people donate to political candidates message become don't let corporations donate?
The fact that you would call protesting a "wrong" shows how wrong you are.
That's a pretty close minded statement. Like anything else, protesting can be done in a good manner or a bad manner. The campers taking over parks and collecting their poo in jars so they can throw it at police have gone down the wrong path. Face it, the real protesters had been displaced by the profession protesters who like to cause a ruckus at G20, World Bank and other functions.
Bill O'Reilly routinely makes shit up. Routinely. So much so Ford's Theater is refusing to sell his book.
Actually shit was made up about this book being banned and you seem to have bought it.
The truth of the matter was that the book was always for sale in the lobby/visitors center of the theatre. It was merely not available in a less frequented basement area that was more for academic works.
Also if you had read the complaints by the park service you would have seen they were quite minor.
Typos?:
Theatre burned in 1862 vs 1863.
8 previous performances vs 7.
Extremely minor errors, some inconsequential:
9 feet from stage rather than 12.
"Played here often" vs "12 prior performances".
"Secret tunnel" vs "passage way through basement".
Minor errors:
Confusion over the use of the name "Ford's Opera House".
Missed that Grant and Lee met a second time at Appomattox.
Use of too modern terminology, "oval office" today being synonymous with "presidential office".
Debatable:
Washington portrait indicating presence of President, perhaps it was a new tradition.
Peep hole carved for guard not booth. But did Booth ever use it?
One wrong does not justify a second wrong. The fact that the second wrong is of a smaller magnitude does not really change this. This basic problem is that the campers are actually acting very much like the 1%. Self indulgent, entitled to act as they wish, a sense that they are above the law, leaving messes for others to cleanup and/or pay for.
If Rachel Maddow is "extreme" to you, then I really have no idea what you consider "center."
No, she's no more extreme than Bill Oreily, just left of center as he is right of center, both occasionally making reasonable points. Something closer to center would probably be Dylan Ratigan. The wackos would be more like Glenn Beck and Keith Olberman, although Beck reigns supreme in this category. Rush Limbaugh may be a more appropriate comparison for Olberman, but he's not a Fox.
Unions are no more people than corporations. Union members are people, just like corporate employees.
Nope. To union leadership the union members, who voted them into office, are people. To the CEO and board they're assets, not people.
As someone who grew up in a union household, as did my father, union members are just assets to union leadership too. Unions leaders are often just executives running an organization and act to protect and grow that organization while giving lip service to its members. Just like corporate CEOs protect and grow their organization and give lip service to their employees. Union leadership are often no longer tradesman/craftsman who came up through working ranks, rather managers and administrators and professional organizers, no more connected to workers than corporate managers.
My grandfather who belonged to a major union for over 40 years told me that the days where unions fought for exploited and injured workers is largely past, that today its usually just a racket for collecting money and political influence. Likewise he believes that unions are no longer guardians of a trade or craft, self enforcing high quality standards, its just a dues collection machine.
No more than the Occupy movement has been co-opted by the Democratic party and its operatives.
Really? If you asked them, you'd know that they have very little use for Obama's protection of bankers. A lot of them have made it very clear that they don't support the Democratic Party or its candidates. Not one national Democratic Party figure has taken part in an Occupy event. They've spent none of the money they've collected on supporting Democratic candidates.
Its not that they are spending money on democratic candidates, its that they are morphing their message so that it is in line with and supporting the democratic party's political message and strategy for the current campaign season. Again, the example of morphing no political donations from organizations, only from individuals, into no political donations from corporations. Their message is now aligned with the democratic political theme for 2012 and protects union contributions.
Many prominent Democrats expressed support for Occupy initially and subsequently distanced themselves as the campers seemed to have taken over. Initially these democrats thought they might get their own tea party like organization.
45% people opposed doesn't seem particularly solid "disapproval" to me...
The relevant point was the 11% downward shift in approval for occupy in November. In particular the shift mainly coming from formerly ambivalent people adopting the negative outlook.
...and driving down the tone of political discourse everywhere they show up. And by bringing assault rifles to public political gatherings. Apparently you mostly pay attention to Fox News.
Hardly. I sometimes watch both MSNBC and Fox to be amused by both extremes.
The fact that a rifle was present at a gathering and no police were needed strengthens the idea that everyone conducted themselves in a lawful manner. Somehow I don't think that was the message you were hoping to convey, but it is none the less.
Seems like one of the largest unions, that of the Police, are far from siding with OWS;
The Police union doesn't give operational orders to the police, the elected politicians do. And anything that protects police jobs, or possibly increases the number of police jobs, will not be opposed by the union leadership.
Of course, the whole point, of being anti-corporate and anti-corruption of Capitalism,...
Actually Occupy is the creation of a media organization that is anti-capitalism and anti-consumerism.
"The Adbusters Media Foundation is a Canadian-based not-for-profit, anti-consumerist, pro-environment organization... Adbusters describes itself as "a global network of artists, activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to advance the new social activist movement of the information age." Characterized by some as anti-capitalist or opposed to capitalism, it publishes the reader-supported, advertising-free Adbusters, an activist magazine with an international circulation of 120,000[4] devoted to challenging consumerism." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters
... is one that goes against the core fiber of both the Democrats and the GOP. So it is quite silly to equate the OWS with the DNC in the same way as the Tea Party was/is essentially just a fringe classification of the actual GOP base.
Not really. The Democrats, unions and other parties want to morph its message into anti-corporation for political reasons. Much as the tea party started as anti-spending and anti-waste and was morphed into something else.
Of course, not being a thorn in the side of people "Who Own You And You Should Shut Up And Take It, Stupid Unworthy Prole" was also a good benefit.
Apparently you haven't been paying attention. The Tea Party has been quite the thorn in the political establishment. The Tea Party merely chooses to voice their opinions by voting rather than collecting their poo in jars to throw at the police.
Given how angry wealthy people and politicians seem to be about them, and how ambivalent most other people I know are, that doesn't seem to be what's happening.
No, just misinformed. While Occupy may have been co-opted by the Democratic Party, ACORN and related groups who are desperate for a tea party organization of their own, Occupy is a creation of the Canadian media organization Adbusters who is related to the former.
"The Adbusters Media Foundation is a Canadian-based not-for-profit, anti-consumerist, pro-environment[1] organization founded in 1989 by Kalle Lasn and Bill Schmalz in Vancouver, British Columbia. Adbusters describes itself as "a global network of artists, activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to advance the new social activist movement of the information age." Characterized by some as anti-capitalist or opposed to capitalism,[3] it publishes the reader-supported, advertising-free Adbusters, an activist magazine with an international circulation of 120,000[4] devoted to challenging consumerism... Adbusters has launched numerous international campaigns, including Buy Nothing Day, TV Turnoff Week and Occupy Wall Street, and is known for their "subvertisements" that spoof popular advertisements." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters
Yes, but the campers aren't delivering the message you were hoping for. Their presence is often a burden on the 99% (small business, workers, commuters, people/families who use parks, taxpayers who have to pick up the cleanup bill, etc) and irrelevant to the 1%.
The Tea Party has been co-opted into Fox News' astroturfing arm.
No more than the Occupy movement has been co-opted by the Democratic party and its operatives. For example union support and funding leading to a morphing of banning donation by organization to banning donations by corporations. Unions are no more people than corporations. Union members are people, just like corporate employees. Union and corporate interests should be represented through their members and employees, not through the union leadership and corporate CEOs with the political connections and big checkbooks.
Plus there is the whole problem of the real Occupy movement voice being crowded out by the fringe far left, the campers, much as the real Tea Party voice was drowned out by the fringe far right. The real voices just are not as interesting to TV as the fringe.
No, I am not. But you have chosen to ignore my simple example of Nike sneakers because you don't want to have facts stand in the way of your beliefs.
No, you really are mistaken. Whether the savings from reduced production costs are used to increase profit margins or to decrease retail prices is irrelevant. Both scenarios share the same fatal flaw. I thought that it would be apparent that the two scenarios would be interchangeable in this regard.
The flaw that both scenarios share is that they assume consumers have no preference for domestic production. If consumers prefer domestic production then foreign manufacture will kill sales. The company never gets to the point where it can increase margins or decrease prices.
The rule of the market economy is *not* to reduce production costs, it is to better meet consumer preferences than your competitors. If consumers prefer domestic manufacture then you do not off shore manufacturing.
Therefore the consumer controls whether or not production is domestic or foreign. Therefore the consumer is responsible for the offshoring of manufacturing. If decades ago consumers had not purchased that first model shoe that Nike offshored then Nike would have kept domestic production. If today consumers started switching to one of the New Balance shoes that are manufactured in the USA and if a preference for domestic manufacture was identified as the cause for the switch then Nike would probably experiment with a model manufactured in the USA to see how real the trend was. Consumers are in charge.
No. Sometimes ethics and patriotism prevail.
That is what I was talking about - they cater to a different market - of naive nationalists. They aren't many, but they are willing to pay more,...
No, for some intended uses there is a preference for quality and reliability. The flashlight for the car is one example, when one is on an overnight camping trip is another,... note that maglites are popular with police and the military. And with respect to the later I am not referring to government issued gear, I'm referring to something soldiers/marines are choosing to purchase as a personal item.
... which leads to higher margins...
That is a gratuitous assumption. The higher prices may reflect the higher cost of domestic production (wages, environmental compliance, better materials, etc).
... and lower investment needs (Maglite doesn't sell that much stuff compared to the cheap alternatives, so they don't need huge factories).
Huge factories can exist anywhere. We've had them before.
This is a niche, though and if they fit this niche well - good for them.
That they serve a niche is irrelevant. My original question remains. When a consumer chooses the cheaper import what is the consumer telling the CEO to do if they want to grow, or maybe even survive in the long term? Again, the consumer is ultimately in charge.
Natural market forces killed (or hurt, to be less hyperbolic) manufacturing in the US (cheap, exploitable labor elsewhere, and mobile capital). If we think these natural market forces are bad, like because the playing field for labor is not level, or we have humanitarian concerns about exploitation of workers elsewhere, we have to stand up and say so somehow. That's what we do through our gov't, and we have resoundingly chosen to profit from the cheap labor at the expense of US manufacturing.
Market forces, the invisible hand of the market, is not some outside force. It is the summation of billions of decisions made by consumers. This is where the true power lies. Better outcomes will be a result of a better informed consumer making better decisions.
I'm actually not even sure that's a bad thing, exactly, but to blame consumers or corporations for acting like they do in a free market is to abdicate responsibility as citizens for setting the market's ground rules correctly.
There is nothing anti-free market about a consumer choosing a short term negative / long term positive over a short term positive / long term negative. The free market does not *mandate* the tragedy of the commons.
Let's see if I understand: consumers should've factored in the long-term economic disadvantages of buying cheap, foreign goods into their buying decisions, because they should have the common good in mind and understand the complete supply chain. Companies selling the good, though, should not do this; they should source parts as cheaply as possible.
You failed to understand. Companies favor neither domestic nor foreign manufacture. They follow whatever path the consumer chooses. If they do not the company goes out of business as their sales disappear. The consumer controls manufacturing. If the consumer rewards domestic manufacturers with sales then those companies who experiment with foreign manufacturing fail. If consumers reward foreign manufacturing with sales then those still using domestic manufacturing fail. Where did business have a choice in this matter? Only consumers have the choice.
Maybe instead, we should've gotten together, collectively, and taxed or otherwise adjusted market prices to reflect the long-term cost of foreign goods, and let the market work as usual,...
Again, your understanding fails. When we erect such barriers then those overseas erect retaliatory barriers. That harms those goods and agriculture that were still being exported. The naive path you suggest is one tried during the great depression, it made things worse.
... instead of randomly choosing the consumer side of the market as the scapegoat...
Your claim of scapegoating fails by your own argument. By claiming that trade barriers should have been erected you are admitting that consumers could not be trusted to make the long term economically sound decision.
Do your own research. The info is easy to find and is from multiple sources.
I did. And the stats that I found were as I described, based on dollar amounts. I did not see similar claims based upon amount of goods (note "goods" not "food") exported, as you claimed. Its your claim, the burden is upon you. I expect that you mistakenly referred to something that included agricultural exports.
Slashdot Mirror
Advice to Gene Simmons - don't make China angry.
Why would China be angry with Gene, where do you think the crap he sells is made?
Why is everyone so scared of the probability of an Islamic based party being democratically elected without fraud in the middle east? We should be embracing the fact it's democratic and fraud free and supporting whomever the people choose.
I realize the following is an extreme case but it is a real case and it occurred this week, not in the distant past. It may help you understand some of the concern and why people are less fearful of governments heading in the secular direction.
"Saudi Woman Beheaded for 'Witchcraft'"
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/saudi-woman-beheaded-witchcraft/story?id=15145041
Oh please. Find an Occupy site where the cops didn't just crash in, trash the entire place, lead the protesters out like cattle without giving them time to gather their things, and then bitch about what a mess was made, and you might have a point.
By claiming protesters had no warnings regarding evictions you have clearly demonstrated an ignorance of recent events.
The Tea Party has been quite the thorn in the political establishment.
Which is why they started as a wing of one of the major political parties, were constantly guided by that party, and ended up giving that party quite a bit of wins in the 2010 elections. Yup, major thorn, that group.
The tea party's origins are in fiscal conservatism, that is not party centric. Fiscal conservatives exists in both major parties. The tea party heavily criticized the Bush administration and leaders of both parties. The tea party tried to avoid social issues to maintain its fiscal focus and bipartisan nature. Unfortunately it got co-opted. Occupy seems to be going down that same path. When you have a loose knit group with no real central organization you are vulnerable to being co-opted. This was the tea party weakness, and it is even more so the occupy movement weakness. Any large group of people can show up at some late date and claim they are part of the party/movement. Like the radical republicans, like the radical democrat activists and campers.
Unions are no more people than corporations. Union members are people, just like corporate employees.
Next time you want to make this asinine comparison, why not back it up by showing an instance in which the leadership of a corporation was chosen by the employees that work for it.
Many union leaders are no more accountable to members than many CEOs are accountable to boards of directors and shareholders. In theory they are accountable but in practice they are not. Union leaders are often professional administrators or organizers that never really worked in the trade like members. Like many CEOs, many union leaders protect and grow their organization, employees and members are just assets, dues paying machines. The later was learned from my father and grandfather, lifelong union workers.
Face it, union leaders are often corrupt and political insiders just like many CEOs. The fact remains that union leadership is part of the current system of corruption.
Its not that they are spending money on democratic candidates, its that they are morphing their message so that it is in line with and supporting the democratic party's political message and strategy for the current campaign season.
Care to post evidence of this?
Did you miss the only let people donate to political candidates message become don't let corporations donate?
The fact that you would call protesting a "wrong" shows how wrong you are.
That's a pretty close minded statement. Like anything else, protesting can be done in a good manner or a bad manner. The campers taking over parks and collecting their poo in jars so they can throw it at police have gone down the wrong path. Face it, the real protesters had been displaced by the profession protesters who like to cause a ruckus at G20, World Bank and other functions.
Bill O'Reilly routinely makes shit up. Routinely. So much so Ford's Theater is refusing to sell his book.
Actually shit was made up about this book being banned and you seem to have bought it.
The truth of the matter was that the book was always for sale in the lobby/visitors center of the theatre. It was merely not available in a less frequented basement area that was more for academic works.
Also if you had read the complaints by the park service you would have seen they were quite minor.
Typos?:
Theatre burned in 1862 vs 1863.
8 previous performances vs 7.
Extremely minor errors, some inconsequential:
9 feet from stage rather than 12.
"Played here often" vs "12 prior performances".
"Secret tunnel" vs "passage way through basement".
Minor errors:
Confusion over the use of the name "Ford's Opera House".
Missed that Grant and Lee met a second time at Appomattox.
Use of too modern terminology, "oval office" today being synonymous with "presidential office".
Debatable:
Washington portrait indicating presence of President, perhaps it was a new tradition.
Peep hole carved for guard not booth. But did Booth ever use it?
That's it for the National Park service list.
One wrong does not justify a second wrong. The fact that the second wrong is of a smaller magnitude does not really change this. This basic problem is that the campers are actually acting very much like the 1%. Self indulgent, entitled to act as they wish, a sense that they are above the law, leaving messes for others to cleanup and/or pay for.
If Rachel Maddow is "extreme" to you, then I really have no idea what you consider "center."
No, she's no more extreme than Bill Oreily, just left of center as he is right of center, both occasionally making reasonable points. Something closer to center would probably be Dylan Ratigan. The wackos would be more like Glenn Beck and Keith Olberman, although Beck reigns supreme in this category. Rush Limbaugh may be a more appropriate comparison for Olberman, but he's not a Fox.
Unions are no more people than corporations. Union members are people, just like corporate employees.
Nope. To union leadership the union members, who voted them into office, are people. To the CEO and board they're assets, not people.
As someone who grew up in a union household, as did my father, union members are just assets to union leadership too. Unions leaders are often just executives running an organization and act to protect and grow that organization while giving lip service to its members. Just like corporate CEOs protect and grow their organization and give lip service to their employees. Union leadership are often no longer tradesman/craftsman who came up through working ranks, rather managers and administrators and professional organizers, no more connected to workers than corporate managers.
My grandfather who belonged to a major union for over 40 years told me that the days where unions fought for exploited and injured workers is largely past, that today its usually just a racket for collecting money and political influence. Likewise he believes that unions are no longer guardians of a trade or craft, self enforcing high quality standards, its just a dues collection machine.
No more than the Occupy movement has been co-opted by the Democratic party and its operatives.
Really? If you asked them, you'd know that they have very little use for Obama's protection of bankers. A lot of them have made it very clear that they don't support the Democratic Party or its candidates. Not one national Democratic Party figure has taken part in an Occupy event. They've spent none of the money they've collected on supporting Democratic candidates.
Its not that they are spending money on democratic candidates, its that they are morphing their message so that it is in line with and supporting the democratic party's political message and strategy for the current campaign season. Again, the example of morphing no political donations from organizations, only from individuals, into no political donations from corporations. Their message is now aligned with the democratic political theme for 2012 and protects union contributions.
Many prominent Democrats expressed support for Occupy initially and subsequently distanced themselves as the campers seemed to have taken over. Initially these democrats thought they might get their own tea party like organization.
45% people opposed doesn't seem particularly solid "disapproval" to me...
The relevant point was the 11% downward shift in approval for occupy in November. In particular the shift mainly coming from formerly ambivalent people adopting the negative outlook.
...and driving down the tone of political discourse everywhere they show up. And by bringing assault rifles to public political gatherings. Apparently you mostly pay attention to Fox News.
Hardly. I sometimes watch both MSNBC and Fox to be amused by both extremes.
The fact that a rifle was present at a gathering and no police were needed strengthens the idea that everyone conducted themselves in a lawful manner. Somehow I don't think that was the message you were hoping to convey, but it is none the less.
Seems like one of the largest unions, that of the Police, are far from siding with OWS;
The Police union doesn't give operational orders to the police, the elected politicians do. And anything that protects police jobs, or possibly increases the number of police jobs, will not be opposed by the union leadership.
Of course, the whole point, of being anti-corporate and anti-corruption of Capitalism, ...
Actually Occupy is the creation of a media organization that is anti-capitalism and anti-consumerism.
... Adbusters describes itself as "a global network of artists, activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to advance the new social activist movement of the information age." Characterized by some as anti-capitalist or opposed to capitalism, it publishes the reader-supported, advertising-free Adbusters, an activist magazine with an international circulation of 120,000[4] devoted to challenging consumerism."
"The Adbusters Media Foundation is a Canadian-based not-for-profit, anti-consumerist, pro-environment organization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters
Not really. The Democrats, unions and other parties want to morph its message into anti-corporation for political reasons. Much as the tea party started as anti-spending and anti-waste and was morphed into something else.
Of course, not being a thorn in the side of people "Who Own You And You Should Shut Up And Take It, Stupid Unworthy Prole" was also a good benefit.
Apparently you haven't been paying attention. The Tea Party has been quite the thorn in the political establishment. The Tea Party merely chooses to voice their opinions by voting rather than collecting their poo in jars to throw at the police.
Given how angry wealthy people and politicians seem to be about them, and how ambivalent most other people I know are, that doesn't seem to be what's happening.
You don't seem to have been paying attention. The ambivalence turned into disapproval long ago.
http://theweek.com/article/index/221562/occupys-plummeting-popularity-4-theories
Deluded much?
No, just misinformed. While Occupy may have been co-opted by the Democratic Party, ACORN and related groups who are desperate for a tea party organization of their own, Occupy is a creation of the Canadian media organization Adbusters who is related to the former.
... Adbusters has launched numerous international campaigns, including Buy Nothing Day, TV Turnoff Week and Occupy Wall Street, and is known for their "subvertisements" that spoof popular advertisements."
"The Adbusters Media Foundation is a Canadian-based not-for-profit, anti-consumerist, pro-environment[1] organization founded in 1989 by Kalle Lasn and Bill Schmalz in Vancouver, British Columbia. Adbusters describes itself as "a global network of artists, activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to advance the new social activist movement of the information age." Characterized by some as anti-capitalist or opposed to capitalism,[3] it publishes the reader-supported, advertising-free Adbusters, an activist magazine with an international circulation of 120,000[4] devoted to challenging consumerism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters
They definitely seem to have been cruelly ignored by the riot police of America...
That's what happens when you show up, wave signs, yell and shout, give speeches ... and go home when the park closes.
Their presence *is* their message.
Yes, but the campers aren't delivering the message you were hoping for. Their presence is often a burden on the 99% (small business, workers, commuters, people/families who use parks, taxpayers who have to pick up the cleanup bill, etc) and irrelevant to the 1%.
The Tea Party has been co-opted into Fox News' astroturfing arm.
No more than the Occupy movement has been co-opted by the Democratic party and its operatives. For example union support and funding leading to a morphing of banning donation by organization to banning donations by corporations. Unions are no more people than corporations. Union members are people, just like corporate employees. Union and corporate interests should be represented through their members and employees, not through the union leadership and corporate CEOs with the political connections and big checkbooks.
Plus there is the whole problem of the real Occupy movement voice being crowded out by the fringe far left, the campers, much as the real Tea Party voice was drowned out by the fringe far right. The real voices just are not as interesting to TV as the fringe.
No, I am not. But you have chosen to ignore my simple example of Nike sneakers because you don't want to have facts stand in the way of your beliefs.
No, you really are mistaken. Whether the savings from reduced production costs are used to increase profit margins or to decrease retail prices is irrelevant. Both scenarios share the same fatal flaw. I thought that it would be apparent that the two scenarios would be interchangeable in this regard.
The flaw that both scenarios share is that they assume consumers have no preference for domestic production. If consumers prefer domestic production then foreign manufacture will kill sales. The company never gets to the point where it can increase margins or decrease prices.
The rule of the market economy is *not* to reduce production costs, it is to better meet consumer preferences than your competitors. If consumers prefer domestic manufacture then you do not off shore manufacturing.
Therefore the consumer controls whether or not production is domestic or foreign. Therefore the consumer is responsible for the offshoring of manufacturing. If decades ago consumers had not purchased that first model shoe that Nike offshored then Nike would have kept domestic production. If today consumers started switching to one of the New Balance shoes that are manufactured in the USA and if a preference for domestic manufacture was identified as the cause for the switch then Nike would probably experiment with a model manufactured in the USA to see how real the trend was. Consumers are in charge.
That is what I was talking about - they cater to a different market - of naive nationalists. They aren't many, but they are willing to pay more, ...
No, for some intended uses there is a preference for quality and reliability. The flashlight for the car is one example, when one is on an overnight camping trip is another, ... note that maglites are popular with police and the military. And with respect to the later I am not referring to government issued gear, I'm referring to something soldiers/marines are choosing to purchase as a personal item.
... which leads to higher margins ...
That is a gratuitous assumption. The higher prices may reflect the higher cost of domestic production (wages, environmental compliance, better materials, etc).
... and lower investment needs (Maglite doesn't sell that much stuff compared to the cheap alternatives, so they don't need huge factories).
Huge factories can exist anywhere. We've had them before.
This is a niche, though and if they fit this niche well - good for them.
That they serve a niche is irrelevant. My original question remains. When a consumer chooses the cheaper import what is the consumer telling the CEO to do if they want to grow, or maybe even survive in the long term? Again, the consumer is ultimately in charge.
Natural market forces killed (or hurt, to be less hyperbolic) manufacturing in the US (cheap, exploitable labor elsewhere, and mobile capital). If we think these natural market forces are bad, like because the playing field for labor is not level, or we have humanitarian concerns about exploitation of workers elsewhere, we have to stand up and say so somehow. That's what we do through our gov't, and we have resoundingly chosen to profit from the cheap labor at the expense of US manufacturing.
Market forces, the invisible hand of the market, is not some outside force. It is the summation of billions of decisions made by consumers. This is where the true power lies. Better outcomes will be a result of a better informed consumer making better decisions.
I'm actually not even sure that's a bad thing, exactly, but to blame consumers or corporations for acting like they do in a free market is to abdicate responsibility as citizens for setting the market's ground rules correctly.
There is nothing anti-free market about a consumer choosing a short term negative / long term positive over a short term positive / long term negative. The free market does not *mandate* the tragedy of the commons.
Let's see if I understand: consumers should've factored in the long-term economic disadvantages of buying cheap, foreign goods into their buying decisions, because they should have the common good in mind and understand the complete supply chain. Companies selling the good, though, should not do this; they should source parts as cheaply as possible.
You failed to understand. Companies favor neither domestic nor foreign manufacture. They follow whatever path the consumer chooses. If they do not the company goes out of business as their sales disappear. The consumer controls manufacturing. If the consumer rewards domestic manufacturers with sales then those companies who experiment with foreign manufacturing fail. If consumers reward foreign manufacturing with sales then those still using domestic manufacturing fail. Where did business have a choice in this matter? Only consumers have the choice.
Maybe instead, we should've gotten together, collectively, and taxed or otherwise adjusted market prices to reflect the long-term cost of foreign goods, and let the market work as usual, ...
Again, your understanding fails. When we erect such barriers then those overseas erect retaliatory barriers. That harms those goods and agriculture that were still being exported. The naive path you suggest is one tried during the great depression, it made things worse.
Your claim of scapegoating fails by your own argument. By claiming that trade barriers should have been erected you are admitting that consumers could not be trusted to make the long term economically sound decision.
Do your own research. The info is easy to find and is from multiple sources.
I did. And the stats that I found were as I described, based on dollar amounts. I did not see similar claims based upon amount of goods (note "goods" not "food") exported, as you claimed. Its your claim, the burden is upon you. I expect that you mistakenly referred to something that included agricultural exports.