3 ms·
The idea that one could "pay a little more for manufactured goods" to retain "world leadership, a high standard of living, and control [of] their own destiny" i
by dbmikus 9y ago
The idea that one could "pay a little more for manufactured goods" to retain "world leadership, a high standard of living, and control [of] their own destiny" is not necessarily true. It assumes that other nations cannot progress without our economic input.
Now, I'm not saying that the opposite is true, either. It's enough of a nuanced issue that I can't give a good or complete explanation. But "protectionism ==> prosperity" is a hotly debated issue and not necessarily true (or false).
- mistermann 9y agoCompletely agree, but I was only saying you could retain the 3rd item, control of your own destiny. Unless they stumble, China will undoubtedly be the world leader before too long (<20 years is my guess), yet other nations would still control how things operate in their own countries, until China decided they wanted control of that as well and decided to forcibly take it. If it was me, I would precede that with some healthy immigration to strategic locations first in order to facilitate a smooth transition, perhaps without having to even fire a single shot.
- hiram112 9y ago> pay a little more for manufactured goods That's only part of the equation. The real issue is that the US elites are going to have to trade some of their profit margins - based on global expansion, market access, lack of tariffs, US military protection of trade routes, etc. - for gains going back to the rest of us. The charts are clear. US capital owners have done quite well. The rest have not. Either something gives or the guillotines become fashionable again.
- Clubber 9y agoStrange that this was down voted. Do people honestly not think armed insurrection is not a possibility in the US? It won't be grand, but it could certainly happen in pockets of desperation.