Can you explain something to me regarding Globalism?

[SavannahMann]

I read another in the seemingly endless defenses of Globalist trade deals that argues the same old thing that does not make any sense. Yet this one is a College Professor, who supposedly knows what he’s talking about. So perhaps someone can help me.

Globalisation: time to look at the past to plot the future | Joseph Stiglitz

Once again the same old tired argument that doesn’t make sense.

Even if manufacturing were to come back, the jobs won’t. Advanced manufacturing technology, including robots, means that the few jobs created will require higher skills and will be placed at different locations than the jobs that were lost. Like doubling down, this approach is doomed to fail, further increasing the discontent felt by those left behind.

The factories relocated to Mexico for some reason. If it wasn’t because of the labor costs, why was it?

Who is Killing American Manufacturing?

These three U.S. companies moved jobs to Mexico. Here's why

Every single news story about a factory moving to Mexico talks about why they are. The reason they give is always the same. Labor Costs. It’s not availability of robots in Mexico. It’s not the reliability of power, water, sewage, or whatever else. It’s labor. So why are all these companies moving to Mexico? Labor Costs. Yet when that simple truth is pointed out, we are told that is nonsense, because all manufacturing is done by robots now.

Well, who decided to pay the robots? Because if the Robots are doing the labor, and the companies like Ford and GM are moving to Mexico because of Labor Costs, then someone is paying robots? That doesn’t make any sense.

So why else are they moving the work to those second and third world nations? Well besides labor costs of robots, which still doesn’t make any sense. Lack of worker safety standards.

The Ship Breakers

Why don’t we tear the ships apart here to recycle them? Well we have worker safety rules and regulations. No such thing in most of those second and third world nations.

To summarize the Gobalist supporter arguments. It’s all robots now anyway, which obviously it isn’t, because the labor costs would not be an issue. It’s good for our economy, to put foreigners into horrific work environments where their lives and health are at risk, because it saves us money. Or something.

Hey just imagine how awesome it will be when we join those second and third world nations in getting rid of worker safety because no one can say no.



This sight will be common in the Globalist future. Workers who are disposable, and cheap.



Who cares if the poor and desperate are exposed to horrific chemicals that will kill them. If they wanted a better life, they should have gone to college. That way they could live in luxury while the scum die for pennies.

That is what Globalism is all about my friends. It is why I oppose any trade deal with an economic inequal economy. Trade deals with equal economies is awesome. They allow competition, and spur advances that serve everyone. That is not what we are doing. What we are doing is taking advantage of the poor and insisting it is good for them.

 

[gipper]

One could make the claim that globalism was an effort to reduce the high standard of living most Americans enjoyed, compared to the rest of the world. It seems to have succeeded.

In the world's richest nation by far, a large percentage of the people live in poverty. I suspect a big unlimited government accompanied by two criminal political parties, has something to do with it

 

[Vastator]

I read another in the seemingly endless defenses of Globalist trade deals that argues the same old thing that does not make any sense. Yet this one is a College Professor, who supposedly knows what he’s talking about. So perhaps someone can help me.

Globalisation: time to look at the past to plot the future | Joseph Stiglitz

Once again the same old tired argument that doesn’t make sense.

Even if manufacturing were to come back, the jobs won’t. Advanced manufacturing technology, including robots, means that the few jobs created will require higher skills and will be placed at different locations than the jobs that were lost. Like doubling down, this approach is doomed to fail, further increasing the discontent felt by those left behind.

The factories relocated to Mexico for some reason. If it wasn’t because of the labor costs, why was it?

Who is Killing American Manufacturing?

These three U.S. companies moved jobs to Mexico. Here's why

Every single news story about a factory moving to Mexico talks about why they are. The reason they give is always the same. Labor Costs. It’s not availability of robots in Mexico. It’s not the reliability of power, water, sewage, or whatever else. It’s labor. So why are all these companies moving to Mexico? Labor Costs. Yet when that simple truth is pointed out, we are told that is nonsense, because all manufacturing is done by robots now.

Well, who decided to pay the robots? Because if the Robots are doing the labor, and the companies like Ford and GM are moving to Mexico because of Labor Costs, then someone is paying robots? That doesn’t make any sense.

So why else are they moving the work to those second and third world nations? Well besides labor costs of robots, which still doesn’t make any sense. Lack of worker safety standards.

The Ship Breakers

Why don’t we tear the ships apart here to recycle them? Well we have worker safety rules and regulations. No such thing in most of those second and third world nations.

To summarize the Gobalist supporter arguments. It’s all robots now anyway, which obviously it isn’t, because the labor costs would not be an issue. It’s good for our economy, to put foreigners into horrific work environments where their lives and health are at risk, because it saves us money. Or something.

Hey just imagine how awesome it will be when we join those second and third world nations in getting rid of worker safety because no one can say no.



This sight will be common in the Globalist future. Workers who are disposable, and cheap.



Who cares if the poor and desperate are exposed to horrific chemicals that will kill them. If they wanted a better life, they should have gone to college. That way they could live in luxury while the scum die for pennies.

That is what Globalism is all about my friends. It is why I oppose any trade deal with an economic inequal economy. Trade deals with equal economies is awesome. They allow competition, and spur advances that serve everyone. That is not what we are doing. What we are doing is taking advantage of the poor and insisting it is good for them.

Mexican labor costs are cheaper than robots. Robots are cheaper than American labor costs... What's so hard to understand?

 

[gipper]

I read another in the seemingly endless defenses of Globalist trade deals that argues the same old thing that does not make any sense. Yet this one is a College Professor, who supposedly knows what he’s talking about. So perhaps someone can help me.

Globalisation: time to look at the past to plot the future | Joseph Stiglitz

Once again the same old tired argument that doesn’t make sense.

Even if manufacturing were to come back, the jobs won’t. Advanced manufacturing technology, including robots, means that the few jobs created will require higher skills and will be placed at different locations than the jobs that were lost. Like doubling down, this approach is doomed to fail, further increasing the discontent felt by those left behind.

The factories relocated to Mexico for some reason. If it wasn’t because of the labor costs, why was it?

Who is Killing American Manufacturing?

These three U.S. companies moved jobs to Mexico. Here's why

Every single news story about a factory moving to Mexico talks about why they are. The reason they give is always the same. Labor Costs. It’s not availability of robots in Mexico. It’s not the reliability of power, water, sewage, or whatever else. It’s labor. So why are all these companies moving to Mexico? Labor Costs. Yet when that simple truth is pointed out, we are told that is nonsense, because all manufacturing is done by robots now.

Well, who decided to pay the robots? Because if the Robots are doing the labor, and the companies like Ford and GM are moving to Mexico because of Labor Costs, then someone is paying robots? That doesn’t make any sense.

So why else are they moving the work to those second and third world nations? Well besides labor costs of robots, which still doesn’t make any sense. Lack of worker safety standards.

The Ship Breakers

Why don’t we tear the ships apart here to recycle them? Well we have worker safety rules and regulations. No such thing in most of those second and third world nations.

To summarize the Gobalist supporter arguments. It’s all robots now anyway, which obviously it isn’t, because the labor costs would not be an issue. It’s good for our economy, to put foreigners into horrific work environments where their lives and health are at risk, because it saves us money. Or something.

Hey just imagine how awesome it will be when we join those second and third world nations in getting rid of worker safety because no one can say no.



This sight will be common in the Globalist future. Workers who are disposable, and cheap.



Who cares if the poor and desperate are exposed to horrific chemicals that will kill them. If they wanted a better life, they should have gone to college. That way they could live in luxury while the scum die for pennies.

That is what Globalism is all about my friends. It is why I oppose any trade deal with an economic inequal economy. Trade deals with equal economies is awesome. They allow competition, and spur advances that serve everyone. That is not what we are doing. What we are doing is taking advantage of the poor and insisting it is good for them.

Mexican labor costs are cheaper than robots. Robots are cheaper than American labor costs... What's so hard to understand?

Agreed.

Factories have closed all over America since the 1970s, resulting in many Americans living a life of poverty.

I don't see how this benefits the nation.

 

[Vastator]

A modern Americans definition of "poverty" is rather humorous to say the least. If the poor amongst us were actually as poor as legitimate poverty suggests... The disparity would show that we aren't doing a badly as many make out. The fact is we've bled our economy dry elevating the once poverty stricken, into a lifestyle of the lower middle class.
As such... We expect our lifestyles to be so much higher. The reality is that we are about where we should be. The "poverty" stricken amongst us are living an artificially elevated lifestyle. If we weren't funding their non achievement; we might have some money left over to give ourselves the boost we think we deserve.

 

[gipper]

A modern Americans definition of "poverty" is rather humorous to say the least. If the poor amongst us were actually as poor as legitimate poverty suggests... The disparity would show that we aren't doing a badly as many make out. The fact is we've bled our economy dry elevating the once poverty stricken, into a lifestyle of the lower middle class.
As such... We expect our lifestyles to be so much higher. The reality is that we are about where we should be. The "poverty" stricken amongst us are living an artificially elevated lifestyle. If we weren't funding their non achievement; we might have some money left over to give ourselves the boost we think we deserve.

Yeah I have heard that argument and I suppose it has some validity. However in a amazingly rich nation, our government and corporate class have done little to improve the situation and have done much harm. Plus why would we as a nation, compare our poor to the poor of other nations? That is nonsensical to me.

From our school system to out sourcing jobs, many Americans on the lower rung of society have been badly harmed.

When three guys have as much wealth as half the population, something is wrong.

 

[Vastator]

A modern Americans definition of "poverty" is rather humorous to say the least. If the poor amongst us were actually as poor as legitimate poverty suggests... The disparity would show that we aren't doing a badly as many make out. The fact is we've bled our economy dry elevating the once poverty stricken, into a lifestyle of the lower middle class.
As such... We expect our lifestyles to be so much higher. The reality is that we are about where we should be. The "poverty" stricken amongst us are living an artificially elevated lifestyle. If we weren't funding their non achievement; we might have some money left over to give ourselves the boost we think we deserve.

Yeah I have heard that argument and I suppose it has some validity. However in a amazingly rich nation, our government and corporate class have done little to improve the situation and have done much harm. Plus why would we as a nation, compare our poor to the poor of other nations? That is nonsensical to me.

From our school system to out sourcing jobs, many Americans on the lower rung of society have been badly harmed.

When three guys have as much wealth as half the population, something is wrong.

I'm not comparing our poor to the poor of other nations. I'm comparing our poor of today, to the middle class of today; juxtaposed against the same as 50, or 60 years ago.

 

[SavannahMann]

I read another in the seemingly endless defenses of Globalist trade deals that argues the same old thing that does not make any sense. Yet this one is a College Professor, who supposedly knows what he’s talking about. So perhaps someone can help me.

Globalisation: time to look at the past to plot the future | Joseph Stiglitz

Once again the same old tired argument that doesn’t make sense.

Even if manufacturing were to come back, the jobs won’t. Advanced manufacturing technology, including robots, means that the few jobs created will require higher skills and will be placed at different locations than the jobs that were lost. Like doubling down, this approach is doomed to fail, further increasing the discontent felt by those left behind.

The factories relocated to Mexico for some reason. If it wasn’t because of the labor costs, why was it?

Who is Killing American Manufacturing?

These three U.S. companies moved jobs to Mexico. Here's why

Every single news story about a factory moving to Mexico talks about why they are. The reason they give is always the same. Labor Costs. It’s not availability of robots in Mexico. It’s not the reliability of power, water, sewage, or whatever else. It’s labor. So why are all these companies moving to Mexico? Labor Costs. Yet when that simple truth is pointed out, we are told that is nonsense, because all manufacturing is done by robots now.

Well, who decided to pay the robots? Because if the Robots are doing the labor, and the companies like Ford and GM are moving to Mexico because of Labor Costs, then someone is paying robots? That doesn’t make any sense.

So why else are they moving the work to those second and third world nations? Well besides labor costs of robots, which still doesn’t make any sense. Lack of worker safety standards.

The Ship Breakers

Why don’t we tear the ships apart here to recycle them? Well we have worker safety rules and regulations. No such thing in most of those second and third world nations.

To summarize the Gobalist supporter arguments. It’s all robots now anyway, which obviously it isn’t, because the labor costs would not be an issue. It’s good for our economy, to put foreigners into horrific work environments where their lives and health are at risk, because it saves us money. Or something.

Hey just imagine how awesome it will be when we join those second and third world nations in getting rid of worker safety because no one can say no.



This sight will be common in the Globalist future. Workers who are disposable, and cheap.



Who cares if the poor and desperate are exposed to horrific chemicals that will kill them. If they wanted a better life, they should have gone to college. That way they could live in luxury while the scum die for pennies.

That is what Globalism is all about my friends. It is why I oppose any trade deal with an economic inequal economy. Trade deals with equal economies is awesome. They allow competition, and spur advances that serve everyone. That is not what we are doing. What we are doing is taking advantage of the poor and insisting it is good for them.

Mexican labor costs are cheaper than robots. Robots are cheaper than American labor costs... What's so hard to understand?

But that doesn’t make sense either. James May of Top Gear did a show where they followed a car through the Mini factory. A car that they had ordered. They followed the car through the manufacturing process. After the body had been assembled by Robots, and the body painted by robots, the humans took over.

This was not unique. They cut away to the Nissan factory which produced twice as many cars, and it was exactly the same thing. Robots did the welding, and the humans assembled the car after that.

With high taxes in Europe, including Income Tax, VAT, and a host of other taxes, it would seem that if anywhere was ripe for Robots it would be the expensive European labor market. Yet, even the newest and most advanced factories are human labor intensive. Why? Because those robots are good at some jobs, but not so good at others.

Airbus creates the largest passenger plane in the world, and it takes 1,300 workers and nearly a year to build one. We Went To France To Find Out How Airbus Builds The World's Biggest Passenger Jet

Now, my math is not perfect. But even allowing for vacations and holidays, that comes to more than two million man hours.

Now, if there were robots that could cut even ten percent of those man hours, wouldn’t Airbus trample everyone in the world to get that number down?

The facts are that skilled labor is expensive in first world nations, and cheaper than dirt in second or third world nations. That’s why corporations want to have trade deals, because they can’t get Americans to work for pennies. Levi’s threatened to leave Haiti when Haiti was looking at raising the minimum wage to $3 a day. Hillary fought against this outrageous demand from the workers.

Now, imagine if we could not ship our jobs to Mexico, and the companies had a choice of building it here, or paying the equivalent to import it. Either way, the nation wins.

If they build it here, people get jobs, good paying jobs. Those folks with jobs pay income taxes, and that is more money in the Treasury. If the companies choose to pay the tariff, then the Government covers some of that deficit anyway.

Trade between equals is good. Trade between inequal economies results in devastation for both nations.

 

[SavannahMann]

A modern Americans definition of "poverty" is rather humorous to say the least. If the poor amongst us were actually as poor as legitimate poverty suggests... The disparity would show that we aren't doing a badly as many make out. The fact is we've bled our economy dry elevating the once poverty stricken, into a lifestyle of the lower middle class.
As such... We expect our lifestyles to be so much higher. The reality is that we are about where we should be. The "poverty" stricken amongst us are living an artificially elevated lifestyle. If we weren't funding their non achievement; we might have some money left over to give ourselves the boost we think we deserve.

So it’s not fair that our poor can’t be forced to work in hazardous environments because they are too rich to consent to such things. Got it.

I’ll take protectionism after such a masterly argument.

 

[Vastator]

I read another in the seemingly endless defenses of Globalist trade deals that argues the same old thing that does not make any sense. Yet this one is a College Professor, who supposedly knows what he’s talking about. So perhaps someone can help me.

Globalisation: time to look at the past to plot the future | Joseph Stiglitz

Once again the same old tired argument that doesn’t make sense.

Even if manufacturing were to come back, the jobs won’t. Advanced manufacturing technology, including robots, means that the few jobs created will require higher skills and will be placed at different locations than the jobs that were lost. Like doubling down, this approach is doomed to fail, further increasing the discontent felt by those left behind.

The factories relocated to Mexico for some reason. If it wasn’t because of the labor costs, why was it?

Who is Killing American Manufacturing?

These three U.S. companies moved jobs to Mexico. Here's why

Every single news story about a factory moving to Mexico talks about why they are. The reason they give is always the same. Labor Costs. It’s not availability of robots in Mexico. It’s not the reliability of power, water, sewage, or whatever else. It’s labor. So why are all these companies moving to Mexico? Labor Costs. Yet when that simple truth is pointed out, we are told that is nonsense, because all manufacturing is done by robots now.

Well, who decided to pay the robots? Because if the Robots are doing the labor, and the companies like Ford and GM are moving to Mexico because of Labor Costs, then someone is paying robots? That doesn’t make any sense.

So why else are they moving the work to those second and third world nations? Well besides labor costs of robots, which still doesn’t make any sense. Lack of worker safety standards.

The Ship Breakers

Why don’t we tear the ships apart here to recycle them? Well we have worker safety rules and regulations. No such thing in most of those second and third world nations.

To summarize the Gobalist supporter arguments. It’s all robots now anyway, which obviously it isn’t, because the labor costs would not be an issue. It’s good for our economy, to put foreigners into horrific work environments where their lives and health are at risk, because it saves us money. Or something.

Hey just imagine how awesome it will be when we join those second and third world nations in getting rid of worker safety because no one can say no.



This sight will be common in the Globalist future. Workers who are disposable, and cheap.



Who cares if the poor and desperate are exposed to horrific chemicals that will kill them. If they wanted a better life, they should have gone to college. That way they could live in luxury while the scum die for pennies.

That is what Globalism is all about my friends. It is why I oppose any trade deal with an economic inequal economy. Trade deals with equal economies is awesome. They allow competition, and spur advances that serve everyone. That is not what we are doing. What we are doing is taking advantage of the poor and insisting it is good for them.

Mexican labor costs are cheaper than robots. Robots are cheaper than American labor costs... What's so hard to understand?

But that doesn’t make sense either. James May of Top Gear did a show where they followed a car through the Mini factory. A car that they had ordered. They followed the car through the manufacturing process. After the body had been assembled by Robots, and the body painted by robots, the humans took over.

This was not unique. They cut away to the Nissan factory which produced twice as many cars, and it was exactly the same thing. Robots did the welding, and the humans assembled the car after that.

With high taxes in Europe, including Income Tax, VAT, and a host of other taxes, it would seem that if anywhere was ripe for Robots it would be the expensive European labor market. Yet, even the newest and most advanced factories are human labor intensive. Why? Because those robots are good at some jobs, but not so good at others.

Airbus creates the largest passenger plane in the world, and it takes 1,300 workers and nearly a year to build one. We Went To France To Find Out How Airbus Builds The World's Biggest Passenger Jet

Now, my math is not perfect. But even allowing for vacations and holidays, that comes to more than two million man hours.

Now, if there were robots that could cut even ten percent of those man hours, wouldn’t Airbus trample everyone in the world to get that number down?

The facts are that skilled labor is expensive in first world nations, and cheaper than dirt in second or third world nations. That’s why corporations want to have trade deals, because they can’t get Americans to work for pennies. Levi’s threatened to leave Haiti when Haiti was looking at raising the minimum wage to $3 a day. Hillary fought against this outrageous demand from the workers.

Now, imagine if we could not ship our jobs to Mexico, and the companies had a choice of building it here, or paying the equivalent to import it. Either way, the nation wins.

If they build it here, people get jobs, good paying jobs. Those folks with jobs pay income taxes, and that is more money in the Treasury. If the companies choose to pay the tariff, then the Government covers some of that deficit anyway.

Trade between equals is good. Trade between inequal economies results in devastation for both nations.

The nation wouldn't win. The business would just headquarter itself off shore, and if need be choose not to sell here if the import tax became too high. It is a global market after all.

 

[Vastator]

A modern Americans definition of "poverty" is rather humorous to say the least. If the poor amongst us were actually as poor as legitimate poverty suggests... The disparity would show that we aren't doing a badly as many make out. The fact is we've bled our economy dry elevating the once poverty stricken, into a lifestyle of the lower middle class.
As such... We expect our lifestyles to be so much higher. The reality is that we are about where we should be. The "poverty" stricken amongst us are living an artificially elevated lifestyle. If we weren't funding their non achievement; we might have some money left over to give ourselves the boost we think we deserve.

So it’s not fair that our poor can’t be forced to work in hazardous environments because they are too rich to consent to such things. Got it.

I’ll take protectionism after such a masterly argument.

I don't doubt you will. Many will along with you, so you won't be alone. If you keep doing what you've done; you'll keep getting what you've got.

 

[Vastator]

A modern Americans definition of "poverty" is rather humorous to say the least. If the poor amongst us were actually as poor as legitimate poverty suggests... The disparity would show that we aren't doing a badly as many make out. The fact is we've bled our economy dry elevating the once poverty stricken, into a lifestyle of the lower middle class.
As such... We expect our lifestyles to be so much higher. The reality is that we are about where we should be. The "poverty" stricken amongst us are living an artificially elevated lifestyle. If we weren't funding their non achievement; we might have some money left over to give ourselves the boost we think we deserve.

So it’s not fair that our poor can’t be forced to work in hazardous environments because they are too rich to consent to such things. Got it.

I’ll take protectionism after such a masterly argument.

Your first sentence is an irrelevant, nonsensical appeal to emotion which has no bearing on the context of the conversation prior to your introduction of it.
Appeal denied...

 

[SavannahMann]

I read another in the seemingly endless defenses of Globalist trade deals that argues the same old thing that does not make any sense. Yet this one is a College Professor, who supposedly knows what he’s talking about. So perhaps someone can help me.

Globalisation: time to look at the past to plot the future | Joseph Stiglitz

Once again the same old tired argument that doesn’t make sense.

Even if manufacturing were to come back, the jobs won’t. Advanced manufacturing technology, including robots, means that the few jobs created will require higher skills and will be placed at different locations than the jobs that were lost. Like doubling down, this approach is doomed to fail, further increasing the discontent felt by those left behind.

The factories relocated to Mexico for some reason. If it wasn’t because of the labor costs, why was it?

Who is Killing American Manufacturing?

These three U.S. companies moved jobs to Mexico. Here's why

Every single news story about a factory moving to Mexico talks about why they are. The reason they give is always the same. Labor Costs. It’s not availability of robots in Mexico. It’s not the reliability of power, water, sewage, or whatever else. It’s labor. So why are all these companies moving to Mexico? Labor Costs. Yet when that simple truth is pointed out, we are told that is nonsense, because all manufacturing is done by robots now.

Well, who decided to pay the robots? Because if the Robots are doing the labor, and the companies like Ford and GM are moving to Mexico because of Labor Costs, then someone is paying robots? That doesn’t make any sense.

So why else are they moving the work to those second and third world nations? Well besides labor costs of robots, which still doesn’t make any sense. Lack of worker safety standards.

The Ship Breakers

Why don’t we tear the ships apart here to recycle them? Well we have worker safety rules and regulations. No such thing in most of those second and third world nations.

To summarize the Gobalist supporter arguments. It’s all robots now anyway, which obviously it isn’t, because the labor costs would not be an issue. It’s good for our economy, to put foreigners into horrific work environments where their lives and health are at risk, because it saves us money. Or something.

Hey just imagine how awesome it will be when we join those second and third world nations in getting rid of worker safety because no one can say no.



This sight will be common in the Globalist future. Workers who are disposable, and cheap.



Who cares if the poor and desperate are exposed to horrific chemicals that will kill them. If they wanted a better life, they should have gone to college. That way they could live in luxury while the scum die for pennies.

That is what Globalism is all about my friends. It is why I oppose any trade deal with an economic inequal economy. Trade deals with equal economies is awesome. They allow competition, and spur advances that serve everyone. That is not what we are doing. What we are doing is taking advantage of the poor and insisting it is good for them.

Mexican labor costs are cheaper than robots. Robots are cheaper than American labor costs... What's so hard to understand?

But that doesn’t make sense either. James May of Top Gear did a show where they followed a car through the Mini factory. A car that they had ordered. They followed the car through the manufacturing process. After the body had been assembled by Robots, and the body painted by robots, the humans took over.

This was not unique. They cut away to the Nissan factory which produced twice as many cars, and it was exactly the same thing. Robots did the welding, and the humans assembled the car after that.

With high taxes in Europe, including Income Tax, VAT, and a host of other taxes, it would seem that if anywhere was ripe for Robots it would be the expensive European labor market. Yet, even the newest and most advanced factories are human labor intensive. Why? Because those robots are good at some jobs, but not so good at others.

Airbus creates the largest passenger plane in the world, and it takes 1,300 workers and nearly a year to build one. We Went To France To Find Out How Airbus Builds The World's Biggest Passenger Jet

Now, my math is not perfect. But even allowing for vacations and holidays, that comes to more than two million man hours.

Now, if there were robots that could cut even ten percent of those man hours, wouldn’t Airbus trample everyone in the world to get that number down?

The facts are that skilled labor is expensive in first world nations, and cheaper than dirt in second or third world nations. That’s why corporations want to have trade deals, because they can’t get Americans to work for pennies. Levi’s threatened to leave Haiti when Haiti was looking at raising the minimum wage to $3 a day. Hillary fought against this outrageous demand from the workers.

Now, imagine if we could not ship our jobs to Mexico, and the companies had a choice of building it here, or paying the equivalent to import it. Either way, the nation wins.

If they build it here, people get jobs, good paying jobs. Those folks with jobs pay income taxes, and that is more money in the Treasury. If the companies choose to pay the tariff, then the Government covers some of that deficit anyway.

Trade between equals is good. Trade between inequal economies results in devastation for both nations.

The nation wouldn't win. The business would just headquarter itself off shore, and if need be choose not to sell here if the import tax became too high. It is a global market after all.

But that isn’t what they do. Toyota, Honda, Volkswagen, BMW, and many more including Kia build here profitably. BMW exports the cars they make here to their European market.

That is the flaw with the threats. It doesn’t happen.

Trade between essentially equal economies is awesome. The “Foreign Car” invasion of the 1970’s resulted in superior cars for everyone. American manufacturers had to adapt to better quality cars to compete with the Japanese. They had to adapt the safety features of the European cars, like Volvo and Mercedes. Today, those safety advances are mandated on every car. It’s nearly impossible to find one without anti-lock brakes or airbags. The auto market became one of adapt or die. The Japanese and Europeans had to adapt to the American Market too. They couldn’t make ugly little econoboxes forever. Mazda makes the MX-5 which was aimed at the British Sports Car market. The British makers are all gone, the MX-5 remains. Reliability was a big part of that. Quality is another.

Look at airplanes. Airbus was the punchline of a joke for a long time. Now, they are incredibly powerful and a major competitor of Boeing, who had to adapt to the advanced composite materials to stay competitive. Now the 777 is a triumph of modern materials and manufacturing. More efficient, more reliable, and stronger than the aircraft of even two decades ago. It was adapt, or die. Boeing adapted, because the competition was going to do it.

In every product, we can see the advances, the progress that is a result of competition. Volvo is making it a goal that no one will die in their cars from 2020 on. That means every car maker will adapt those safety advances no later than 2030.

Crumple zones? Thank Volvo. Engine mounts that are designed to shove the engine downward in a head on collision? Thank Volvo. Pretensioners for Seat Belts? Thank Mercedes Benz. Airbags? Mercedes.

That is what happens when you have trade between economic equals.

Look at the millions of lost jobs that resulted from NAFTA. That is what happens when you have trade between inequal economies.