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

I find it a very false statement that i only take into account the short term. I've given examples that go 30 years (Hong Kong) and even 50 years (Japan) back in time. Offshoring in general is dated as being about 30 years of age. And now to jump to the MAJOR economic misconception of our time: 'For one to win, someone else has to lose.' Life is NOT a zero-sum game. Ever wondered when people will trade? They will when both believe they improve themselves that way. So if we'd really get poorer by paying foreigners to make goods for us, we wouldn't do it, that would make no sense. So, the opposite is even true: the foreign trade makes us richer. We get something we value more than what we gave for it. Second, if wealth was finite, where did all those cars, televisions, aircrafts... (almost all things we're used to now) came from? They weren't around 200 years ago (most not even 100 years ago). The answer is the human race itself: we're creative beings, we invent, develop new technologies, improve techniques... Technology is one of the major drives for our soaring wealth. So far, there are only reasons to asume that the economy will improve: we need to pay less for getting the same, so we have more left over to invest/spend. So no reason to fear a depression. (as a side note: booming economies import more: huge economic activity = huge demands) The US produces little? Where did you see that? the GDP/capita is highest in the world. The US mainly exports resources? 27% is resource exports (not that strange btw, a developed country like the US focuses more on services, less on production. So less need for resources), so that certainly isn't the most part at all. (Side note: Biggest export product is capital goods, 49% of the total and so by far the largest part) Yes, American labor isn't cheap in absolute figures, but American labor also is very productive (again i can refer to the GDP/capita), which justifies most of the decent wages paid now: the return on investment (the wages) is good. Do you know the comparative advantage principle? It means that people should focus on what they're best at, this will maximize their productivity: there will be more of that product/service in total and the producers (the people) will have earned more. They can easily obtain the other goods/services on the market. The developing countries are very good at producing labor-intensive, simple goods, that's why they do it. The developed countries are very adept at handling complex manufacturing processes, capital intensive production, research, services... That's why those industries are typical for these countries. Exporting to pay import: comparative advantage. About the safeguarding. I didn't get what you meant when reading the sentence, but i see your examples following, so i'll handle those: If a country stops buying your goods, it's because you can't offer them at the same level (quality/price) as others. Now, you can do two things: 1) You leave things be: the sector that gets into troubles that way, will feel a major incentive to become more efficient. and/or They will move to something different they are better at. The consumer gets the best product at the best price. 2) You go protect that industry: the sector has no incentive anymore to be efficient, since there is no competition. So they won't do the efforts anymore to improve, making the productivity of the sector deteriorate further. The consumer has to buy a product now of lesser quality and(/or) higher price, since they're barred from the most preferment producers. In solution (1), the free market mechanism will take care of the problem itself, it will give short term problems to the sector, but it will make them catch up or move on to something different over time. In 'solution' (2), you only battle the symptom, but the problem remains in place and even gets support. China civil war: this will indeed harm the deliverance of their goods. This will make prices rise. But those higher prices will mean more benefits for the remainder of the sector. This will attract investors, they will start production themselves and prices will go down again. (they will probably be a little bit higher, since the Chinese were the best, and the current ones the second bests) So again, there will be in the very short term a 'problem', but it will solve itself quite fast. Also, how real is the chance it will happen? Imho not enough to justify protecting own industry, allowing them to be inefficient, resulting in a constant situation of goods for the consumer that are not as good and(/or) more expensive the whole time. Now for another misconception you bring in: "no matter how we shuffle money around, there's less every year." That is a false statement. The US doesn't pay foreign workers in dollars, they pay them with yen, yuan, euro... that were bought with dollars on the market. Now, the other party on the currency market bought dollars. Money being submitted to inflation and not resulting in benefits on its own, is naturally bought to be used again to pay American workers or buy their goods/services. The only thing that will change is currency trade rates, but this in fact supports economic stability. But there certainly won't be less money around. Also note that this tackles your next part: indeed, those workers will mostly spend it on local goods, but what they are spending is local currency. The one who gave his local tender in exchange for dollars certainly will spend those dollars on American workers/products/investments. (otherwise there is no point buying them) About the less wealth to pay with: almost my whole post up to now showed that there will be more wealth. (note that it is the increased wealth that causes inflation, that's nothing but normal in a booming economy) Again about your only small part remains here: 1) i'd like to refer to my examples given in round 1 about major offshoring magnets from 30 years ago and beyond. + Offshoring is already a 30 year old concept. 2) unemployment rates: they are more or less constant (even more then before offshoring came kicking in): ftp://ftp.bls.gov... 3) there is a major part that stays because it can't be move: most services. There is also a major part that stays because they're good at their work (high productivity), justifying their higher wages. Then about not having all those regulations: i don't see the problem. They indeed are free from those. But still the production over there is inferior to the US one. Also, besides ban on child labor (an ethical question), i don't see why those limitations should be introduced. Quality is always of an issue! You're acting like only government can decide (for us...) what is good quality and what not. I am, like most people, able enough to decide for myself, based on informing myself and previous experiences. Reputation (and so quality) are very valuable things. You can't build them up out of nothing, anonymous. They are hard to maintain, easy to lose, but damn they are money cows. (just look at the prices from brands with a reputation compared to the blanc brands) On government: i'll leave out the money there is to tax, since i've stated that there is more wealth. Government doesn't spend because of the private sector, if they did, they'd prevent deficits. Those deficits push the private sector partially out of the investment markets. Short point on your countermeasures: If you'd do that, they'd just insert a company in the chain: a foreign company that pays fair wages to its employees, buys the goods from the 'sweatshop' companies and sells them again to the US company. (extra chain part -> less profit for the US (companies)) If you'd ban that too, companies would simply change their HQ to an other developed country without the ban, so no longer US company. Now THAT would drain the US, a company exodus.