Outsourcing labor is a serious danger to America's economy and needs to be dealt with.

Well, if 30 years is short for you (stress the you), we can still go for older examples of how open trade resulted in wealth: - UK, beginning of 19th century: opened up for trade (where all the others held up protectionist policies). - Japan, during meiji restoration: opened up after isolationism for centuries and flourished. Even if 30 years wasn't long, long can't be much longer, even for you, but we don't even see the first signs of your claims as far as i'm aware. Companies are certainly in for the long term, since they don't die. And stockholders want their investment to be worth it. Even if they aren't in there forever, it is in their best interest for the company to stay healthy, since that will influence the value of their stocks in a positive way, resulting in better prices when selling. And how does the slow growth of companies prove they're in for short term? If they were, you'd rather expect a short growthburst instead of slow growth. Enron doesn't prove that companies are in for the short run. It is an example of an employee (the relation of a CEO towards the stockholders is that of an employee to his employers) that framed his employers. The recall issue then: where is the prove they were aware of it? Furthermore, they got caught, so this proves there is control. And what do you believe that the consequences are? Let's take Mattel for example. They got severe reputation damage. (the recall costs are futile compared to this) I don't know parents who'd dare to expose their children to potentially dangerous toys. And it's not like they disbanded now, right? They're still there and don't have an intention too, so no quick cash-and-run. The trade deficit then: you imported far more goods and services than you exported, indeed. But for the money you paid, you got goods at least worth that amount of money you've spent on it. Is someone with a television (assuming you wanted that), worth 100$, any poorer than someone with just 100$? I doubt if someone will say no. Also, there are more things that move between countries than just goods and services. Investment for example. (since it doesn't make sense for those foreign countries just to keep those dollars, money itself doesn't get interests) About capital good export: yes, you export goods to produce with. From that production, you'll buy a part, i don't see the problem. The US is good at producing these capital goods, the buyers are good at producing with it. You also quickly pass by what capital goods exactly holds. It isn't just buildings. Jets, Parts to assemble (cars, machines, aircrafts...), Computers, Software, Cell phones... Also note that the distinction between capital and consumer goods can be as narrow as who buys them. (someone who wants to produce -sensu lato- with it or someone who just wants to 'consume' it) About wealth: i didn't say technology = wealth, i said it was a major drive in wealth creation. Also note that i haven't found anywhere your definition of wealth: wealth isn't just resources and money. It is far broader than that. (in fact as broad as i stated already in earlier rounds) Japan: well, that indeed does damage to the high-tech industry in the US. But also to the Japanese consumer, who can't buy certain US high-tech goods any longer or at a worse price, resulting in a lower potential wealth for them. So to protect a part of them (the ones in high-tech), everyone else gets hurt. Also note that in the interview, they interview someone from the high-tech sector. Now i don't want to attack your source as a whole, but isn't it quite logic that he wants to help his own interests out. He'll be better of when protectionism for HIS sector kicks in, that all the other people get hurt isn't to his concern. About productivity: i want to stress that you have to put wage into comparison with productivity. To get the best return for the costs you make. Indeed, some jobs move to foreign countries, because productivity/(wage (+transport costs)) is better there. But there are MANY and MANY jobs that stay (since we see stable unemployment), that is for the same reason: those employees have the better producivity/wages. Comparative advantage: doesn't need a balanced trade balance. If all parties would produce on their own, you'd still have the same losses: less productivity and less possible imports. There will indeed be some losses in high value sectors (note that EPI doesn't give any numbers on that in their statement, not even in the original article. And refers to aerospace sector: obviously they do more of that themselves, they joined the space race between Nations. (not companies)), but that will be rather limited. The example of a foreign country having a depression or a war: indeed, export will drop without import. (although that will probably be the case during war) But again, that is no real problem: you pay money for goods/services worth it. (as stated previously) Having your own factories for their goods doesn't guarantee a thing. Small and simple example: you need cars. You value those cars at 10000$. They sell it at 8000$. So by buying from them, you increase the wealth by 2000$. (at personal level and international level) Now, say you hamper those cars from entering local market, so you now have to buy from the less competent US producers, they sell at 9000$. You only benefit for 1000$ at personal level. At national level, you don't see loss (nor gain at first sight) However, there is a reason for that higher price: the US producers were less efficient. But due to the embargo, they are allowed to waste 1000$ worth of means that could have been spent by a company (in an other sector) proving itself more efficient. (by being able to compete on international level) Now at what they do with the money: there is no problem with investment. Investment is great! Let the Arabs invest in American ports. That will create employment (and very likely: indirect extra economic activity) in the US. Isn't that much better than those same arabs spending their means in their own country, where it won't be of any use to the US people? Sure, they take part of the benefits. But that is normal and justified: investing is a risk + it needs to result in something for the investor, to compensate them for them giving means to work with. You don't lose income. Why do the Arabs own it? Because they value it more than other (American?) investors. So they have a better future for the companies (in this case: ports) in mind than the previous investors. About unemployment. Could you support your argument of many of the unemployment now being long-term? I doubt that, the unemployment are so low that i don't see much space for that type of unemployment. (4.6% in total, when you take the rough estimate that natural -short-term- unemployment is generally 3%, there is not much space left in for long-term unemployment) On regulations: It is your right not wanting antifreeze in your toothpaste, producers are obliged to inform about their products, so that should be mentioned so you can chose not to buy it. Minimum wage and benefits when getting injured: are we talking about the foreign low wage countries? Since in that case it is far more unethical to deny them the work. If talking about the US: real wages aren't what they are because of minimum wage IMO (stress IMO, cause this is a whole discussion on its own, same for the injured benefits:) if you wouldn't have to pay taxes to fund that 'insurance' (because that's what it is: government assurance), you'd have money to buy private insurance. (but again, it is a debate on its own ;)) Government (not) spending because of private sector: imo, they don't, no matter whether economy fares well or bad, they have huge deficits. Also note that increased company benefits (due to offshoring) result in more tax money. About tariffs: it hurts all US people, for the private interests of some. (the sec