Or why we wouldn’t need minimum wages if internationalist socialists hadn’t opened all economic borders all forced job creators to outsource manufacturing labor to foreign nations.
Repeal all minimum wage laws + Re-establish economic borders = End unemployment.
Basic common-sense economics explained by Peter Schiff.
It’s funny to note how both the communist and the new wave of pro-European globalist share very similar views on most subjects. For instance, they both follow blindly the work of so-called economists that had very little real market experience (Marx for the Red, Hayek, Bastiat, Von Mises for the Blue). They’re also both eager to openly designate scrapegoats, the “invisible enemy” against whom we must all unite for the “greater good” even beyond American interests. And finally, they’re both also eager declare themselves outsiders, anti-system or anti-establishment.
Recently in our political debates, many conservative candidates have expressed views about a more open market, a free market if you will. Now free market doesn’t have to mean mere submission to the globalization of our economies as Ron Paul suggests, some markets can be very restricted yet very open to globalization (or even globalism) as California shows us.
Free market means a more open economy inside our borders, less governmental restrictions on businesses and business creation. Now as favorable as I am to this idea, our politicians and other leaders have now managed to turn what was once a genuinely good idea to a new masquerade of demagogy.
Politicians, and especially Ron Paul, seem not only to see free market as the new magic pill, but even as the only economic proposition. Free market is neither the new magic pill, there shouldn’t be any magic pills, neither should it be the only proposition of any decent candidate.
He seems to think that by allowing free market all the problems we face will be solved… well first of all that would imply that all are problems are economic, not political or ideological for example.
And secondly, where are all the other top free market countries in the world ? Once again, Ron Paul and the other liberal suckers are very good at scaffolding demagogic speeches, but as always they don’t translate in reality.
The two biggest exporters in the world, China and Germany, are also those who have some of the least free markets. The United States actually aren’t bad at all in terms of free market, ranking 6th on the 2011 economic freedom index. Germany is 25th and China 132th. Yet, we have the worst trade balance in the world, ranking 198th on… 198 countries. Note that the difference between the USA’s trade balance and the 197th is bigger than the difference between the 1rst and the 197th. If you have any experienced in statistics, you shall notice how fucked up that is.
But don’t forget that trade deficit is only the tip of the iceberg, the real consequences lie behind it : printing, taxing or borrowing money, reliance on foreign investments…
The top five countries with the best trade balance also have the least free markets : China, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Japan, Russia (source: CIA world factbook).
Not only that, but most of the successful countries also have a lot of governmental involvement : over 50% of GDP for France, Belgium, Denmark, Russia. How can Ron Paul still advocate free market as the ultimate solution, the magic pill ?
Sure free market is beneficial, I’m not saying otherwise. But it all comes down to supply and demand, and there’s a very (very) simple equation that both Ron Paul and Marx seem to ignore : supply = demand. No more, no less.
How can there be a supply when all our goods or produced by foreigners in foreign countries ? How can there be a demand when our economy, like our politicians, is completely disconnected from the reality of the market by countless stimulus plans that involve printing, borrowing or relying on foreign investments ?
Free market and economic liberty are both stimulating factors for an economy, but under no condition should they be considered as “magic pills”. If the candidates believed in real liberalism (individual responsibility), they’d drop the magic pill speech altogether and leave that for Obama. But the truth is that neither Ron Paul nor any other candidate is any better than Obama to answer our current economic issue. As a matter of fact, most of our politicians don’t even want to answer them.
Among the 2012 presidential debates that spread quickly and increasingly over this country, quite a few yet not as much as expected concern the economic situation of the United States of America.
Strangely enough, these same economic debates will have been characterized by two essentials elements : the overly pronounced taste for globalism of our candidates and the complete absence of solutions concerning the trade deficit.
For the first one, no real surprise you don’t step out of five decades of blatant ethnomasochism as easily. For the second characteristic on the other hand, even though I half expected it I must say I am nevertheless taken aback by the stupid of those who desire to govern us.
On the economic table,you might have witnessed a few lonely tirades about the public spending, and even less numerous interventions about the unemployment, which Ron Paul blames on the… FED. How original.
I truly have a hard time seeing how monetary creation, if that’s what Ron Paul reproaches to the FED in the first place, leads to unemployment since on the contrary, in the short term monetary creation will bring devaluation of the currency, and lead to more exports. It’s only in the long term that monetary creation can show its perverse effects, more on that later.
But aside from Ron Paul’s usual ramble, very few mentions to our current economic situation have been noticeable, like for example our record high trade deficit. It’s also funny to notice that we barely use the term “trade balance” anymore, only “trade deficit” implying that our balance couldn’t be positive.
Only once again, and if you dispose of whatever political experience or plainly common sense you may already have noticed, purposely ignoring an issue won’t make it fix itself. We’ve had proof for the public debt, the ethnomasochism, the anti-Americanism and countless other political experiments.
The truth about the trade deficit in America
Every candidate talks openly about such concepts as wealth redistribution and common wealth, but what they seemingly fail to notice is that to have any wealth to distribute you have to produce it first. And as we fail to produce any wealth, actually we lose some each day hence the term trade deficit, our economic system is only feeding on a smaller and smaller piece of cake : our past gains.
The only companies actually bringing money into the USA are the very old ones, often times the ones labelled as corporations by the mass media, and they are also believe or not the most taxed entities in this country.
But taxing our big companies is not and was never enough for our economic system not to collapse under the weight of the drag that is our American Business Model.
To substitute to our nonexistent and even hugely deficient production of wealth, there are three solutions.
1. Tax money
2. Print money
3. Borrow money
Needless to say that our government is applying all three of these, and rather ineffectively.
But don’t forget that Americans are sheep, and whole common wealth system is designed against them. In the long run that is.
The system is designed by essence for the supply to meet the demand by all needs necessary, disregarding our sovereignty and our long term national interests (the liberals always talk about collective interest, but what is more collective than our own nation I demand).
Americans are such sheep that as long as the supply meets the demand, or in this case the demands, they won’t protest. They all want the “miracle pill” to solve all our problems, and that’s exactly why charlatans such as Ron Paul can rise effortlessly on top of all political polls.
Americans aren’t lucid at all when it comes to political and economical decisions, and these democratic debates often turn out to be one way overbidding schemes.
– We aren’t producing enough wealth and bringing enough money in our country ? We can either change our ways and adopt a more patriotic form of citizenship, or we can just tax the rich and the companies. The latter solution is easier, more demagogic and by the time the consequences will arise there will be a new president in the office to put the blame on.
– We can’t tax the rich anymore but still aren’t bringing enough money in our country ? We can either change our ways and adopt a more patriotic form of citizenship, or we can just borrow our money with massive interest rates from other countries, most of which openly consider themselves our enemies. The latter solution is easier, more demagogic and by the time the consequences will arise there will be a new president in the office to put the blame on.
– We can’t borrow anymore money but still aren’t bringing enough money in our country ? We can either change our ways and adopt a more patriotic form of citizenship, or we can just print more money disregarding the issues linked to devaluation. The latter solution is easier, more demagogic and by the time the consequences will arise there will be a new president in the office to put the blame on.
The candidate Ron Paul and several other conservatives have strongly opposed the concept of monetary creation, at least indirectly, and the “FED system”. Unsurprisingly, none of them has ever brought up the consequences of ending a system on which our whole economy is now dependent.
And for once in the history of the United States of Demagogy, there is a possibility that the supply won’t meet the demand, simply because there is no more supply. There are no more fake issues, “miracle pills”, Jesus-is-our-savior-he-will-fix-our-economy-vote-Santorum-2012, nonviable settlements, wrong answers and non-solutions to disconnect the American people from the market.
Our politicians believed they could just ignore the reality of economic war and the market altogether, but they are only just starting to see the consequences of fifty decades of internationalism and ethnomasochism.
Following the perpetual ethnomasochism in our media, we now have instituted a new doctrine pairing with that : the cult of mediocrity.
It’s clear now, for those who still had any doubts, that the anti-American media’s only goal is to lead us straight to a soviet-like system, only very ethnomasochistic. In other words, they want Nationalsozialismus… without the National of course.
I don’t personally like Mitt Romney as a politician, and I certainly wouldn’t want him in the White House, but you have to respect what he has done for this country.
As CEO of Bain & Company he was credited for leading the firm out of crisis, and founded one of the biggest private equity investments companies in the world.
And not only did he enrich himself by bringing money into the United States, as opposed to the supporters of the American Business Model that do the exact opposite (Walmart anyone ?), he also chose to spend his money in a patriotic way, by buying not one but several American cars.
How dare he be rich ? That privilege should be reserved to the Foreign ! No American should be allowed to be wealthy, as that would mean less money for the Foreign invaders !
And not only did he acquire his wealth in a healthy way for our nation, as opposed to say public-spending profit-suckers, but now he also decides to spend it in a patriotic way ?
Such acts of blatant intolerance could only come from a nationalist, fascist, racist pornographer, intolerant child-rapist and maybe even a little antisemitic. Those acts go against everything propagandized by the media : worshiping the foreign.
That’s not demagogic / anti-American at all !
Buying American products ? What’s next, racial segregation ? Concentration camps ? He must be stopped at all costs !
He should of gave away all his money to the foreign the very second he earned it ! Or at least, he should of spent it promoting foreign films in our own nation !
How can a man aspire to be the next president of the United States, when he is not even capable of kneeling before the foreign colonization of our society !
He should of been proud to give his American money away to foreigners that despise Americans, and will probably never pay any taxes in this country.
He should of been proud to feed what’s left of American sovereignty to the European hegemony.
Did he even think of the consequences of his acts ? He could of helped an American company be more competitive and have more funds to spend on research, or even worse create more jobs in America !
No wonder the media is trying so hard to bring him down after that.
It’s stunning that the media would have more respect for a teacher (sucking public funds) that decides to buy Toyota or Volkswagen cars and then comes complaining about the “1%”, portraying him as the poor victim of modern society (bad banksters, bad government, bad America…), and exhibit successful and patriotic people such as Romney as the enemy.
Because in reality, we’d much rather send our precious and costly dollars to Martin in Germany or Carlos in France, which are very happy to receive them, rather than producing our own products and supporting our own economy, and maybe even sell our products to other countries that could give us their dollars for once.
What a pleasure it is for all Americans to participate in the wealth of countries that openly consider themselves our enemies, countries that apparently need our money more then we do despite the economical crisis we are floundering in.
What a pleasure it is for all Americans to enrich even more some already rich capitalists from all around the world that will never pay the slightest tax in America, and that probably vote for nationalist and anti-American political parties in their respective countries.
What a pleasure it is, finally, for all Americans to know that countries that openly promote anti-Americanism in all its forms will retrieve an increasing share of our wealth.
It’s so much better to “work” a 9-5 job sucking money out of the commonwealth, forcing our government to borrow or print our salaries directly from the Fed, then give it all away to our enemies while complaining that the government is screwing us up.
Americans already had a serious problem with ethnomasochism, but if we add to that the growing cult of mediocrity, I can clearly state it : we are fucked.
Want to know an easy way to destroy the healthiest and most powerful economy in the world and turn it into a mere import market highly dependent on governmental stimulus with the highest trade deficit in the world ? Easy, try the American Business Model.
While in the rest of the world, regular economies are based on a cooperative patriotic model that we will call “regular model” for short, we in America being very ethnomasochist have developed what is called the American Business Model.
The purpose of this American Business Model, advocated by multiple political personalities such as George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Ron Paul, is to screw Americans out of business, weaken our economic security, destroy our financial independence as well as our sovereignty, and all in the name of less profit.
Yes you heard me right, you will have LESS profit than if you followed the traditional cooperative patriotic model, the regular model if you will. The beauty of the American Business Model is that it’s so ahead of the curve that it will give you as least profit as possible while effectively ruining your country.
Of course, the American Business Model comes in pair with ethnomasochism, concept which has, I believe, vastly inspired it.
American Business Model vs Regular Model
For the rest of this article, we will use the examples of Walmart and its foreign competitors to illustrate the power, or lack of, the American Business Model over the regular model.
In the process of selling goods, for example in a retail store like Walmart, there are three factors to into account. These three factors represent each financial transfer, and are of course the production costs, the transfer costs and the purchasing costs.
The first one involves the costs of the production at the factory. It’s beneficial for the workers and their country, not so much for the factory that produces the goods.
The second involves the retail store buying from the factory. The cost is higher than the one of the production, so it’s beneficial for the factory, not so much for the retail store.
The third involves the customer buying from the retail store. The cost is higher than the one of the transfer, so it’s beneficial for the retail store, not so much for the customer.
All this to learn that the customer is losing money when he buys something, but the customer can become a worker himself. I added “and their country” on the first case, but virtually it’s beneficial for the country of anyone winning money so it also applies for the other two. Simultaneously, we could argue that it’s detrimental for the countries of the buyers who lose money on their purchases.
In the regular business model, let’s take the example of a retail store of a foreign country F. If the CEO of this store wants to make money by selling goods, he needs to have these goods produced first.
1. Usually he will address a local manufacturing company, in the same country F, and start selling to the local market. For the moment, there are only financial transfers inside the country F, F is neither benefiting neither losing from these transfers.
2. If he wants more money, he will try to export the goods to the rest of the world. This means more money for the retail store, and more money for the manufacturing company because they will have more commands. The country F is exponentially beneficial, because they “win” not only from the retail stores income but also from the factory’s labor.
Now let’s have a look at the American business model. The CEO of a retail store in the USA wants to make money by selling products.
1. Being a good ethnomasochist he will try to outsource to a manufacturing company in a foreign country and start selling on his local market, the US market. For the moment, there are only unilateral financial transfers from the USA to the foreign where the factory is located.
2. If he wants more money, he won’t try to export. He will try to find more foreign and “exotic” products to bring to the US market, even more losses for the USA. There being a constant stimulus of money from the Fed in many forms, there will always be enough money on the US territory, only its weakening even more our economy.
I took the example of Walmart because they serve as a good example, but there are even more extreme cases of the American Business Model.
But take Walmart and its competitor Carrefour, which is french. Walmart imports products from China and sells to exhaustion to the US market and a few other markets. Carrefour sells almost exclusively French made products around the world, even to China.
As long as American companies continue with this unsustainable business model,
As long as American companies search to bring foreign products into the US market instead of trying to export US products,
As long as American companies, in order to make more money, will try to make product cheaper instead of trying to export,
the United States will continue down the same road.
Despite the current economic recession in which we flounder cheerfully, most Americans are more concerned with seeing who will be next anti-American buffoon to “represent” them at the White House.
Despite the growing public debt, the massive trade deficit with every other country in the world, the ethnomasochism in our society and the idolatry of foreign cultures reaching never ending heights, the Americans really believe that a mere change in governance will solve their problems.
A bit more on the trade deficit. If you followed the news two weeks ago, you may have noticed that our trade deficit has nearly reached $600 billion with the world for 2011 alone, including a $300 billion trade deficit with China. An obvious result nevertheless.
Notice that in America we don’t even speak of “trade balance” anymore but simply “trade deficit”, unconsciously implying that our trade balance couldn’t be positive.
Now back to our politicians. Since Barack Obama’s 2008 election campaign, every since presidential candidate wants “change”. Granted that’s the basis of a candidacy, but this message has only been reinforced since Obama’s campaign.
Every single candidate from the Republicans to the Democrats have the same expectations : more jobs, more buying power, better lifestyles,etc…
But in reality, none is taking any action or even proposing any solution towards any “change”.
Basically, they are proposing the exact same politics as for the last forty years and expecting it to work out different for some random reason. What’s the old saying, “do what you as you always did and get what you always got” ?
What the politicians are actually meaning when are proposing the SAME INEFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS as for the last four decades, is that they don’t want real “change”, they just want the same consequences as for the last four decades.
And I quote : delocalizations, trade deficits, ethnomasochism, anti-Americanism, poor buying power.
I have a serious hard time believing how Ron Paul, or any other media-built “savior”, will change anything when he is proposing the same thing as for the last forty, or even fifty years.
As I said in my previous article, small government and debt reduction isn’t all. Fighting socialism isn’t everything there is.
Take countries like China, Japan, Germany, South Korea. They are a lot more government dependent than the USA, and have more jobs, more buying power (yes even China), less trade deficit, and obviously not the typical American (or anti-American ?) ethnomasochism.
They produce more, they export more (proportionally), live better, have a lot more buying power, and typically do the opposite of what Ron Paul advocates.
Even most European countries, which pay up to 300% more taxes than in America (multiple taxes on income, VAT…) and have the Euro burden produce more than us and bring in more income than us.
I’m not saying every proposition of Ron Paul or any other politician is bad, just that they are no solutions to the bigger problems, bigger problems that are intentionally evaded.
If Americans want real lasting “change” for the better, simply stop the idolatry of the Foreign : foreign cultures, foreign tourism and especially foreign products like foreign films.
Many Anti-American lobbyists, here in our very own nation, can (and do) easily manipulate the public opinion with the help of several myths and false affirmations.
Let’s review some of the most common myths spread by the Anti-American, and rate them with a “validity index” in percentage.
Validity index is a trademark of USA National and is used to rate the following affirmations based on their validity. Indefensible sophism will obviously hit the score of 0% validity.
At USA National, our goal is to fight Anti-American propaganda, ethno-masochism and antipatriotic disinformation.
I am not arguing that disinformation and propaganda is used by all governments and medias, all over the world, but I must say that I was very surprised when I found out that our government/media are actually not working for the nation, but against the nation. And that is very unique, trust me.
Here are the most commons myths. You can hear them on the news, on the radio and even in the mouths of some particularly prosperity-hating politicians, and they all concern Buying American and economic patriotism.
The Myths of the Anti-American
“Buying American is bad because other countries will start doing the same, and it will start economic wars and conflicts.”
Validity : 0%
Lets start with the first and one of the most common myths about economic patriotism, and buying American.
First of all, the argument “other countries will start doing the same” mostly applies to protectionism which is a Socialist/Statist value, not economic patriotism which is a liberal/libertarian value.
Secondly, it implies that other countries are not already doing the same, which is obviously a lie by the either uneducated or anti-American. Anyone gifted with a minimum of observation can clearly notice that modern economy, under the wing of globalism, is actually a race towards economic patriotism.
The term “economic war” or “economic warfare” is a commonality in the European or most Asian media, or in the mouths of their politicians.
By stating this argument, the anti-American lobbyist want to make you think they are scared of the USA instigating conflicts with other countries, without mentioning that the conflicts are already there.
The American government and their media have mastered the skill of minimizing real problems (while entertainingly parading false problems), and hiding pretty much everything related to them. Latest examples to date, the national debt, the deindustrialization, the loss of competitiveness, the trade deficit.
But once again, just breaking the thermometer doesn’t make the the heat go down, pretending everyone is pro-American and there is no economic war won’t make it reality.
If I were to talk all day about how the sky is actually green, I would probably convince a few people. If you granted me huge mainstream media access like the left-wing extremists and anti-Americans have, I could maybe even convince a majority of American voters (which is apparently all that concerns our politicians).
But at the end of the day, the sky is still blue.
“I don’t support nationalism, so I won’t buy American.”
Validity : 0%
Once again, mass disinformation at its best. Face it, nationalism exists everywhere and much more outside of the USA than inside unfortunately.
Its very funny because what is fascism in the USA becomes no more than minimal patriotism and basic citizenship in other countries.
There is an old political satyric comic strip I once read, that I can’t seem to find anywhere now that I’m looking for it, that is very on point with this fact.
The most surprising is that if I am not mistaken, which I totally could be, it seemed like an old comic strip, as such it is even more interesting because in advance on its time.
Basically, there are five soldiers of different nationalities aligned, all have some stereotypical attributes of each nation (I couldn’t really describe each cause I can’t remember much of it), and all had text captions underneath them.
From left to right :
– A Vietnamese soldier with a cone hat, waving the Vietnamese flag and the caption said “A Brave Patriot !”.
– A Russian soldier with his fur toque and pelt outfit, waving the Soviet flag and the caption said “A Brave Patriot !”.
– A French soldier with his beret and a piece of bread under the arm, waving the French flag and the caption said “A Brave Patriot !”.
– A Cuban soldier with a huge beard and an AK-47, waving the Cuban flag and the caption said “A Brave Patriot !”.
– An American soldier with a Harley-Davidson, waving the American flag and the caption said “A Stupid Redneck !”.
This example serves as an illustration to point out the inexactitude of this argument.
Whatever you do, you will support nationalism, so it might as well be American. The people who intentionally buy from foreign companies are not anti-nationalists, they are just anti-American.
Volkswagen was founded and popularized by the Nazis, Toyota/Honda/Nissan benefited of unfair trade conditions and was financed by national preference campaigns.
So it always makes me laugh when I hear people tell me they buy foreign because they support “free trade”.
On a side note, the USA is the least nationalist country in the world, so accusing American patriots of fascism (the golden world that can make a left-wing extremist win any argument on command) is pure uneducated nonsense.
In America, you can’t even say the n word without being labeled as racist.
And I believe that is a good thing as I don’t support racism or racial discrimination, but that’s very representative of the “hippie” mindset of most Americans when confronted to subjects concerning races/ethnics/nations.
When I tell that anecdote to foreign people I know (not English Speaking), they laugh.
I must also states that as an American patriot and nationalist, I stand strongly against racial discrimination/segregation in our country. Those acts are intentionally obfuscated and confused with nationalism, all that thanks to the obscurantism of the anti-Americans (including those who pretend to be nationalists, while they actually are even more anti-American than most of the population).
“National preference is useless, because each time we import a product we also export one.”
Then how do you explain the trade deficit ? The deindustrialization ? By the way, I’m not only talking about physical product exports/imports, but all sources leading income/outgo of money.
There is national preference in every country in the world. We can’t really define or calculate the amount of economic patriotism in one country, but there are some signs that are evident to those who chose to pay attention to them.
No doubt, the USA are one of the least nationalist or patriotic countries in the world, especially when it comes to economics. Breaks most stereotypes huh ?
There is also no doubt that economic patriotism has a huge positive impact on the economy of the countries that know how to use it, without the negative side effects of protectionism.
From those two facts, there is also no doubt that this argument is false and held mostly by the ignorant (and anti-Americans since they are everywhere).
“Buying American kills the competitiveness of our companies.”
Once again, intentional confusion with protectionism (a socialist theory). Buying American, aka national preference, is what creates competitiveness, or more precisely what helps creating it.
The reason why it is hard to understand is because this theory is far too simple for most of us to relate to. Especially in economy, we often expect (and use) complicated theories that most people don’t understand quite well either. But sometimes the simple solutions are the effective ones.
It’s kinda like when someone learns the rubix cube algorithm, they are expecting something insanely complicated at first when in fact the algorithm behind is of the most simple. The human mind by default doesn’t like simple solutions as they don’t flatter our egos as much as the complicated scientific and intellectually challenging ones.
But should we stop eating, drinking and sleeping because those tasks are too simple ? Sorry for the insomniacs 😛
Those three tasks are the simplest and most natural and at the same time the most beneficial for us, there is no twist.
PS : By simple I mean simple not easy. A simple task can be hard to execute, while a complicated task can be very easy to deliver.
The same is for the economics benefits of buying American, not only for the competitiveness of our companies, but also for the wealth of our country in general.
Most of the big foreign companies today, the same ones that operate in America and make a big income here, benefited of gigantic boosts due to economic patriotism.
Toyota and all the Japanese car manufacturers, as well as the South Korea ones, only became competitive and started to export when they advertised and publicly assumed their national preference.
“Ne laissez pas l’agroalimentaire aux Américains”, a famous nationalist and anti-American slogan that was launched by an association of French companies that I won’t quote. Most of them were already exporting to the USA when they launched that advert.
“I am not in unemployment, so I don’t see the use of buying American.”
A common myth once again, popularized by the anti-American, and destined to convince most Americans of the uselessness of economic patriotism if they were themselves in a more or less wealthy condition. This myth was illustrated by the image of typical unemployed “Rednecks” being the most patriotic class.
This image couldn’t be further from the truth as studies have shown that the more wealthy are often the more responsible in their purchases.
Once again, the mass disinformation and obscurantism of the anti-American has worked because the nationalists and patriots of America are now associated in the mind of most of our citizens with the bottom class, living off unemployment compensations.
Real studies on the other hand, have shown that this particular type of population is far from being patriotic, especially economically. Funny because they are, and will continue to be, the first to suffer when our economic situation gets even worse.
A quick reminder that proves that the anti-American don’t even care to be coherent anymore.
To dismantle this argument, you must first understand that American consumerism is way above what is allowed. Our spending, whether from the citizens or the government, is way to high (the worst is that they’ll buy foreign crap).
There are two types of spending, earned spending (through the exports and incomes of money), and borrowed spending.
Our borrowed spending is money our government loans from foreign country in order to stimulate consumption and purchases nationwide. The money they borrow, obviously they have to pay back to the lenders with high interest rates.
So why do they do that ?
Another “breaking the thermometer” tactic. You will see them often in the hands of politicians.
If Americans only relied on earned consumer spending from the start, they would have learned the virtues of economic patriotism (the hard way, I admit it) amongst others.
The government is borrowing trillions of dollars to mask the fact that we have a huge trade deficit, and the effects of this “strategy” are only to increase this deficit even more.
“Buying American is bad because it deprives foreign countries from the USD (dollar), and it will lose its influence overtime.”
… and I’ll stop here for today. You can leave a comment with your suggestions of other arguments used by the anti-Americans, I will review them in a second edition if there is enough material.
This is the only argument against buying American with some valid points in it, unfortunately not enough to pass the status of mere sophism at best.
True the theory of “beneficial imports” has been evoked (evoked, not proven !) by several liberal economists, especially in the case of countries mastering their own currency like the USA with the dollar.
The only problem with this, is that the country that sell to the USA are accumulating huge reserves of USD themselves.
So either they acquire American business, of which they can then dispose as they want to.
Either they keep the huge amounts of USD in their reserves, and the Fed has to print bills again which causes inflation and monetary instability.
In either case, it is bad for us. However, as this argument is a little more enlighten than the traditional “u proamerican u racist !”, it will maintain its validity score of 50%.