A common misconception among protectionists is that free-market competition necessarily leads to lower prices. Take Nike for example. A protectionist argues that because Nike is (re)locating in low-wage areas, that that cost-savings should be passed along to consumers. This attitude betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. Nike not only has other variable costs that may be rising, but it may choose to re-invest its additional profit (if it is rising) back into the company, buy additional assets, distribute it back to shareholders,
etc. Also, protectionists fail to understand that Nike spends
billions on marketing and branding in order to get consumers to pay
more for its product. Look at Tiger Woods.
The only thing that competition in a free(r) market guarantees is higher efficiency. To claim that prices should magically fall whenever a competitive decision is made is, well, myopic.
Your claim of 'efficiency' is a presumption. I have not always seen that in the 'really' world. Actually, I question the entire scheme of overseas health care.
It sounds rediculous. Make clothing or other 'objects' where this can be done with some efficiency & cost the least-but please tell these idiots I have no desire to 'transmit' my information around the world, to be mis-interpreted by people with whom I may not interact, people with whom I may not even communicate!
"The War has many facets;
http://aztlan.net/ Look at your enemy."
"The War has many facets;
http://aztlan.net/ Look at your enemy."