Posted on 05/15/2016 3:48:36 PM PDT by Lorianne
Critics of Donald Trump “America First” economic nationalism are undoubtedly correct when they assert that his policies will raise consumer prices or, put concretely, the $5 made-in-who knows where but probably overseas shirt from Walmart may be history. But, the awaiting price increase is only part of the larger financial perspective, and if viewed more broadly, the picture looks less bleak.
The costs of economic nationalism can be viewed from two vantage points. The dominant perspective, and the one usually favored by multi-national businesses, is to focus on imports as an unqualified good deal for consumers. It is an alluring argument -- after all, how many shoppers will pay a premium for an item that comes with a “100% made-in-America” tag? Imagine if Walmart offered imported products side-by-side with those costing a third or more? A no-brainer or so it would seem. In other words, trade agreements like NAFTA and cheap immigrant labor are a boon for bargain-minded American consumers.
But bargains may be illusionary and these hidden costs probably far exceed the ending of paychecks for unemployed American shirt-makers. After all, idle shirt makers are not guest workers who can be deported when their jobs evaporate. Many if not most will live for decades and their government-paid “upkeep” should be included in the bargain shirt.
These monetary costs can be gleaned from the campaign rhetoric of candidates seeking votes in those areas where jobs have “fled” overseas. The typical “cure” for this job loss is an assortment of government measures such as extended unemployment benefits, tax credits for firms locating in these areas, subsidized job training, low-cost community colleges to acquire “21st Century” job skills, plus handouts like food stamps, Medicaid, and old-fashioned public welfare.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
It needs to be streamlined and expanded to help small businesses sell overseas to be competitive...
I’d rather pay $750 for the shirt and have fewer people on welfare.
Create jobs reduce welfare shrink government
Japan,Korea,and China all used economic nationalism to achieve huge trade imbalances. What’s wrong with the US doing it?
People with no jobs will not be buying any goods, no matter how cheap.
It doesn’t enrich the right (i.e., connected and protected) people.
You buy imported crap twice. Once at the store and again when you pay income taxes.
Don't let them mislead you. Prices for made in America products are just marginally more expensive.
We have to make a case for this?
It used to be conventional wisdom. No one disputed it.
Some of us in the over 50 crowd recall an America where virtually EVERYTHING was made here, and that was considered our greatest strength.
Now somebody has to try to convince us?!
Except heroin.
Another imported product.
Tell that to the EBT 0bama brigade.
A forty percent tariff on a five dollar shirt would be around forty cents retail. Around the same amount as the massive sales tax most states charge.
If a shirt retails for $5. It costs around $1 to purchase. The rest is delivery, warehousing, merchandising, overhead and handling costs.
It also takes into account that a textile product is among the most labor intensive of produced consumer goods.
One of the problems with our “fair trade” deals is that we removed our tarriffs but they retained barriers to importing US made goods - so we get all their stuff cheap but it is hard to export.
You do not want foreigners to invest in America, you prefer that Americans invest in foreign countries? Why shouldn’t America be the best place in the world to invest?That is relevant because a “balance of trade imbalance” is nothing other than an investment flow toward the country with a “negative balance of trade." It can have no other cause.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.