Should it be legal for the federal government to purchase goods produced outside of the United States? What are the reprecussions of the government purchasing goods from outside of the United States?
Is it good if it is your money that is going directly overseas via a government agency instead of the traditional private enterprise?
Should the government be required to procure the capital goods necessary to be self-sufficient? If we were in debt would it be unwise to purchase goods from outside of our own homeland when we have bills to pay?
Consider Country 1 and Country 2.
In Country 1, a worker with machinery can produce 6 shoes an hour or 6 shirts an hour.
In Country 2, a worker without machinery can produce 2 shoes an hour or 3 shirts an hour.
Now, with two hours of work, each country can produce the following:
Country 1 - 6 shoes, 6 shirts
Country 2 - 2 shoes, 3 shirts
Total = 8 shoes, 9 shirts.
But, if they know about comparative advantage and are willing to trade, then they can produce the following:
Country 1 - 9 shoes, 3 shirts (1.5 hours shoes 0.5 hours shirts)
Country 2 - 0 shoes, 6 shirts (2 hours shirts)
Total = 9 shoes, 9 shirts
Working together, they can create more wealth with their time, then they can trade. Country 2 can trade shirts for shoes, and country 1 can trade shoes for shirts, and both can end up with more than they could have made on their own.
It is an idealistic view. Realism would imply that westerners sought for natural resources and agricultural produce in counterparty they sold their manufactured goods. However the game has always been rigged by westerners exploiting to their benefits Africa's, South America's and Asia's commodities. In doing so, the West got richer and the South got poorer or "in development". Is it without counting on the legislations favoring their interests. Davos privileges superpowers.
I understand why private industries partake in exporting their jobs overseas, but why would taxpayers in need of jobs that provide a live-able wage tolerate paying into an open system that progressively loses money?
If our government only purchased goods from its homeland would we not save money in the long run? Many government officials advocate buying locally and thinking globally, but how can anyone take them seriously when it is currently legal for federal agencies to purchase supplies from other nations, let alone nations that the USA is in proxy-wars with?
Trading seems to be an obligation. A new trend is building though, with the BRIC, the ALBA formations... countries trade in a fairer fashion. Let us remember Chavez who instigated this movement of fairness from the shackles of the west. They use another currency to free themselves from the dollar domination.
However it is an interesting question knowing that during a crisis shouldn't we privilege our economy versus a foreign one? Shouldn't we encourage local production versus international? Shouldn't the government penalize through heavy taxation any offshore production arriving in our households in their final destination with an insane profit margin? Shouldn't the government be independent from the pressure of lobbying? To those questions, I answer positively yes.
I agree. Perhaps the problem is that American culture is losing the desire to work. Granted that many people with college degrees do want to work and are working, it is becoming a problem for those without college degrees as blue color jobs are almost all but gone, save the building construction industry, resulting in a competition for simple jobs in convenience and retail. Is there anything useful that Americans can learn from the initiative measures of Chavez?
I certainly think that it should be a strong consideration by the federal government to purchase goods from mostly American suppliers. Anyone who has followed me for any length of time knows I am not a protectionist, but I am also not a huge fan of globalization in the sense that I think that American manufacturing has not benefited by globalization, but rather has taken a back seat. This has put many Americans out of work, and I think has been a large contributing factor in stagnant wages, and widening of the gap between the rich and the poor.
Ultimately I think the full extent of capitalism should reign. It is survival of the fittest. It is about stiff and strong competition. And when it comes to the federal government, for the sake of tax payers I do think the dollars have to be looked at when comparing ANY purchase made by the federal government.
I do not agree that buying foreign made good by the federal government should be illegal. I do think that strong efforts should be made to buy as many goods and services from American companies producing in America as is possible to do.
by dutchman1951 8 years ago
Should the Courts allow this? Why would a Foreign government be allowed to sue any US State? Have we already lost State rights? What the H... are we doing, even entertaining a idea like this for?
by crankalicious 6 years ago
What would happen if Congress were 100% Republican?I mean this as a serious question. Consider it a thought experiment. If you want, you can spout the usual political dogma of your party, but give it some real thought and then respond. Try not to give pat answers. And I'll ask this same question,...
by Kathryn L Hill 5 years ago
Fortunate: "favored by or involving good luck or fortune; lucky." There is a certain amount of luck involved in survival. In life, we seem to be dealt a deck of cards. Some are more fortunate than others. They are born with many advantages and have it much easier than others. Some are...
by Peeples 3 years ago
What are the positives of allowing individual states more control?I find it kind of weird that we are the "United States" yet the goal seems to be independent states making their own laws which can contradict other states. What are the positives of allowing states to have the ability to...
by ga anderson 5 years ago
The conservatives are going nuts.The fanatics are screaming, "Remember Waco and Ruby Ridge."Tea Party and Republican politicians are flocking to get on camera in support of rancher Cliven Bundy.But, Is this rancher right?The gist:A cattle rancher grazes his cattle on public land. His...
by Thomas Byers 6 years ago
You know what sort of debate I'd like to see? One with instant fact checkers, a buzzer that goes off when they lie, and a microphone that switches off when their time is up. And I would like to see them address the real issues like.1. The Homeless2. Hunger In America3. All Our Jobs Being Sent...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|