> So investment bankers (not companies?) have a moral obligation not to
> fund projects which ship jobs overseas? Even though they'll make
> scads of money on them?
>
> I'm sorry, I really don't see this. Investment bankers, like everyone
> else in business, are driven by profit. Unless you're talking about
> heroin manufacturing or kiddie porn, I'm not sure what morality has
> to do with it. I'm not sure how it's "selling out the country".
> Selling the Chinese satellite and missile guidance technology is
> selling out the country.
An interesting point. Your implication is that making a profit, legally,
cannot be immoral.
I think there IS a line you can cross, where legal pursuit of profit is
immoral. The location of the line may be subjective, but it exists. If
I said that somebody produced a product, which they KNEW to be
junk that would self destruct within ten minutes of use, and sold one
to everybody in the land, we might agree that this is rather despicable,
but doesn't cross the line of immorality.
But what if the person knowingly sold everybody in America something
that would give them zero benefit, and would destroy their life savings.
But it's legal. Isn't there any point at which it becomes immoral? I
suggest
that if you knowingly sell something that does harm, you may be crossing
the line. Even if it's legal.
Each of us has to decide for themselves, but I do think that people who
profit, legally, and KNOWINGLY do great harm to the entire nation, are
somewhat evil. Of course, since you don't agree that any great harm
has been done, it might be a moot point to you.
You mentioned that selling missile technology to the Chinese qualified,
to you, as "selling out the country".
Well consider where the Wall Street bankers have placed us:
1. Right now the Chinese are HUGE supporters of the US dollar. It
suits them, for now, to maintain the currency relationship. Lucky for us.
2. Remember the west coast dock strike? After a few days (9 or so?), the
president ordered them back to work, because it was becoming
a NATIONAL SECURITY problem. After about a week without Chinese
imported goods, it was a threat to "national security".
Don't those two points make you feel vulnerable? Hmmmmm, I would
say that someone who knowingly created that situation was in the
same league as someone who sold them missile technology, no? There
is more than one way to conquer a country.
> And actually, those factories did come back. It used to be that
> Japanese/Korean cars were made overseas. Now it's become economically
> more feasible to locate their factories an the American south. Of
> course, that's not true of all oriental commodities. Just an example
> of where it _can_ happen.
Unless we look at specific cases, I can't say for sure, but I strongly
suspect
that there are two factors at play.
1. The government has installed "content requirements", forcing some
manufacuring to be brought back onshore. It has the same net
effect as tarrifs, which I would also favor (and I used to be the world's
biggest free-trader; slept with Milton Friedman's book under my pillow
and everything!)
and
2. Because the local economies were in such desperate shape, the
various levels of government are offering such huge tax concessions
to the Koreans, Japanese, car companies. So it's kind of like using our
own money to buy the appearance of economic health. (BTW, what
usually happens is that after the tax holiday period ends (five years,
or whatever), the factory will be sitting idle again)
John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:25:28 EDT