Lots of economics doesn't make common sense... until you learn more about it. Here's a VERY off-the-cuff explanation of why NOT making something can enrich the economy as a whole:
When you do NOT spend effort on a low value-added activity (like making socks, as in my previous example), you benefit in two ways-One is that effort can be spent in higher value activities. Which factory is better for the economy as a whole: one that makes socks, or one that makes microchips? There is NOT a perfect one-to-one ratio between the inputs on the two products, but I believe the point is made.
The second big improvement for an economy is that if you are spending 50 cents for socks rather than $2, then the economy can 'spend' the $1.50 savings doing other, more productive things. Whether it's starting a new business, taking a vacation, buying new tools, or even just slapping a new coat of paint on the house... all that freed-up capital enriches the economy which helps everyone.
You are right that I can't prove that number... I don't have the studies and whatall in front of me and quoted from memory. But I hope the above 'napkin' explanations can show you at least the general mechanism where a missing job can actually be a benefit. If I can dig up that study, I'll post it here.
That example only applies at full employment. The situation we have is 25% UNEMPLOYMENT. Our people aren't spending their time on something better. How can you not see that your example doesn't apply at 25% UNEMPLOYMENT?!?
The question that is pertinent is, is it better for our economy to have a factories and people working or not to have factories and let people stay on unemployment.
And buy the way, China is making an awful lot of micro chips now. Remember the recent article about fake Chinese chips in U.S. military equipment? The argument that China only makes low value stuff is no longer applicable. They've moved up.
It's like y'all only attended the first week of economics. You only learned the general argument in favor of trade. Did you not study the special cases which dealt with trade policy when one country had large amounts of excess labor? or countries which didn't play by the same rules?
Yes, you can spend the $1.50 savings on unemployment for the people that are now out of work. That's is so much better. And since Probably $1.70 of the original $2 price was labor, government income tax revenues just fell $0.34. So now after you've paid for their unemployment, you can higher taxes to make up for the government shortfall. That's so much better!!!!