But... Spain elected a socialist government, on al-Qaida's instructions! How could they be in trouble now?

Truly, the ways of Allah are impossible for men to comprehend.

So, how's that global economy workin' out for you?
I'm not being a protectionist when I say that this may be a good time to renew our economy by focusing our efforts at home. Perhaps when enough Americans are unemployed (like me), and our leaders finally understand the depth of despair brought about by their actions, we can return to the principles of limited government that caused our great success as a nation.

B.Boy,

The economy is global. If you want gasoline it will have to be paid for with exports.

The real deal is: learn how to compete.

And remember: every one's output is some one else's input. If you force people to buy the high priced inputs(protectionism) you then have two globally uncompetitive industries instead of one. A recipe for ruin.

And you know: when politicians control what is bought and sold the first thing bought and sold is politicians.

BackwardsBoy, you get it.
M. Simon does not.
It isn't theory when a factory is shut, thousands who worked there, and the many more thousands who supplied that factory are left without an income - their houses foreclosed, their cars repoed, and they line up for unemployment and food stamps.
There are indeed those of us who relish making something of value with our hands, and brains.
And then there are those who make their living by advancing unproven theories learned in the ivory towers of academia. That they end up destroying our lives never seems to hit them.

Frank,

Yeah. I'm just so insensitive. However I have come around. I think paying high prices for things to keep people employed is just the ticket.

Why just yesterday I heard about all the unemployed farmers because food was too cheap. If we raised the cost of food by a factor of 10X we could employ a lot more farmers.

And if manufactured goods cost more companies would stop automating away jobs. New cars for $30,000 is a crime. They ought to cost $300,000.

And those cheap foreign computers at $500 are a crime. If they cost $5,000 a lot more Americans could be employed.

And how about those damn imported cell phones at $40 or less a pop. They should be selling for $4,000. More Americans would be employed and you wouldn't have all those folks yacking on a phone while walking down the street.

Yep. I finally get it. Protecting the uncompetitive will make us all richer and secure our jobs in perpetuity.

Them point headed academics just don't get it. Letting people sell us stuff for less than what it costs us to make it is a bad idea.

So what you need to do Frank is make your own car, make your own clothes, and grow your own food. Because buying that stuff for less than what it costs you to make it is a very bad idea. You could have a job for life if you made all your own stuff by your hand and brain. You would never be unemployed.

I'm going to have to tell all my friends about your wonderful economic discovery. Wait until I tell them that by paying $300,000 for a new car or better yet $3,000,000 they will be better off and America will be too. In fact if they paid $30,000,000 for a new car they would be doing even better. Think of all the unemployed workers who would have jobs if cars cost $30 mn a pop.

We are so lucky to have you around Frank in order to explain to us stupids how things really work.

Next thing we have to work on is interstate trade. If people in Michigan had to buy cars from Michigan and Michigan didn't have to compete with North Carolina the Detroit Auto Industry would be thriving.

The economy is global, and has been for years before it became a buzzword. So blame it all you want, just as I'm sure you damn gravity when you fall. You want us to stop buying from overseas, the obverse of that coin is we also stop selling overseas.

There's a joke about two Jews (for some reason it's never two Yankee traders) shipwrecked on a desert island for ten years. When finally rescued, each has become fabulously wealthy - by selling their hats back and forth to each other.

See, it's a joke. The reason the punch line is funny is that economics is not a closed system. I can't explain it much better than that. You'll need a trained pedant for that.

But keep railing against those darned job snatching globalists and the corrupt politicians who somehow gain by impoverishing us all.

M. Simon, I didn't have you in mind when I made the reference to academia. I did have in mind people like Alan Greenspan, Bill Clinton, and of course, Milton Friedman. (Nothing personal there.)
My views about globalism are similar to those advocated by Sir James Goldsmith, the infamous corporate raider/turned environmentalist in his two books The Trap, and later The Response.

Summing up from Answers.com:
"In 1994 he published The Trap, setting forth the thesis that social stability was being destroyed by global free trade, intensive agriculture, and nuclear energy. Goldsmith continued to be concerned with trade issues, speaking out against GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) in 1994. He argued that GATT could lead to social chaos because low-wage foreign workers, augmented by the collapse of communism, would displace workers in America and Europe. Competition for cheap labor, in his opinion, would enrich big corporations, dislocate people in poor countries, and deprive European (and American ) workers of needed jobs. Goldsmith suggested local continental trading blocs as an alternative. In 1995 Goldsmith self published The Response, which presented evidence to support his thesis in his first book."
While I don't agree with all of his points, he is now being proven right with a vengeance.

M. Simon:
I should add that I generally don't agree with the protectionism now being advocated by labor unions. They're trying to close the barn door after the horse ran out, was caught and butchered, and is being served to us on a platter from China.
But the fact is that unless we want to lower our standard of living to that of China or India, we cannot compete in this country or the world.
Even if all those impediments to business efficiency were removed or scaled back here, like high taxes, the nightmare of regulatory abuse, environmental insanity, etc, we would STILL be at a competitive disadvantage given the near slave wages in places like China.
I think we'll see civil unrest if this hollowing out of production continues at the pace of the last 20 years.
Your sarcasm aside, the demise of Circuit City proves that the unemployed, broke retirees, and food stamp trailer trash can't afford those low cost produced gadgets made with slave wages overseas.
So, M. Simon, if a pair of shoes is now dirt cheap at $25.00, if you don't have the $25.00 because you're out of work, or working for minimum wage and can barely afford food & rent, then you don't buy the "affordable" shoes -- you get them repaired first, and then put cardboard in the soles, and finally you go barefoot. Get the point?

Frank,

I like your attitude of defeatism:

we cannot compete in this country or the world.

My answer: more American slaves. They are called machines and will work 24/7 365 for the price of electricity.

But you know - either way the jobs are gone.

My prescription: invent shit faster than the world can copy it. Such an attitude has worked for 200+ years. I think it can work for 200 more.

What have you invented lately?

There has yet to be a law invented that can repeal reality. Deal with it or die.

===

And Frank - what put you out of work was a skill set that doesn't match the current environment. Time for CHANGE.

What would I go into if I was in your position? Biotech. Plasma physics. Control engineering.

The deal is Frank we have to import skills like engineering because it is too "hard" for Americans to learn all that hard math. So be it.

There are opportunities out there only limited by your imagination and your clinging to a job. Why not start something and have a job?

What you mean when you say "I can't compete" is that some one out there is hungrier than you are. Well fine. When you get hungry enough you will be able to compete.

What it means is that when times were good you didn't prepare for the lean years. You bought more house than you could afford. Whatever.

Adapt or die.

And Frank,

Eight years ago I decided I wanted a different career. For four years I spent my time commenting on blogs.

Then I started writing a blog. Then I got invited to write on team blogs.

Now I get paid for writing. Not much, but the trend is upwards. And you know what? I can compete.

I'm also considered one of the top amateur experts in Polywell Fusion. Why? Because I spent all my spare time learning new stuff. Something I have done all my life. Turn off the damn TV and educate yourself.

"Instead of conducting vastly expensive actual experiments, such as nuclear tests, the United States simulates tests using supercomputers. And computer software technology acquired during this process has emerged as one of the United States' core strengths."

http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200901/200901220003.html

Got a clue yet Frank?

M. Simon:
Yes, there will always be those who can quickly adapt and change. The areas you speak of like biotech, will undoubtedly offer great opportunities.
I'm glad you have the capacity to compete on that level.
If you haven't read The Trap, however, you should. Goldsmith was a capitalist in the extreme. He was a member of the European Parliament elected from France, with dual citizenship in the UK and France.
You seem to want to put anyone who opposes globalization into the category of a Luddite.
Is that how you win arguments, by falsely painting your opponent, and then arguing against those positions you ascribed to him?

Let's for a minute concede every argument made for total worldwide free trade. I've read Mises, Hayek, & Hazlitt. The Austrian School is correct. I've also read Benjamin Anderson's Economic History of The United States, and Reisman's Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics. You and they are right, in theory. But then look at the actual practice of free trade.

First, the Austrian School advocates a gold standard, that is, a worldwide monetary system independent of the whims of politicians. This is a prerequisite.
Do we have that? And just what kind of a god-awful monetary & credit mess are we in right now?

Second, these free market economists assume a free, or mostly free society with government intervention into the markets absent. Do we have that? And isn't it getting worse by the day?

You think that technology will bail us out, that there will always be another Bill Gates around the corner. You're dreaming. The spark is quickly being extinguished by the statism descending on us all.

Frank,

We currently have a problem: job loss. You attribute it to global trade. I attribute it to a secular down turn i.e. current technology has run out of gas (high profit opportunities).

If we are permanently out of high profit opportunities then incomes around the globe will equilibrate and there is not a damn thing you can do about it.

If we want to keep our standard of living above the rest of the globe we have to be more profitable. I don't see any other way. Raising the costs of inputs (shoes, steel, copper) is no way to increase profitability.

You see a problem. I see it too. One diagnosis suggests solution A. A different diagnosis suggests solution B.

There are 92 natural chemical elements (not exactly but for purposes of analysis we will assume that). All are required for an advanced technological society. Not all of them are found in the USA in economic deposits or sufficient quantities. Now what?

So do we stop importing oil?

BTW Hong Kong was in a sea of cheap labor. How did they manage to raise their economic conditions above that of the sea they lived in? By decreeing that cheap shoes from China were off limits?

What you are complaining about is the pain of change. What I say is that putting off the pain makes the pain more severe when you finally have no choice.

What you keep leaving out is comparative advantage or to put it another way: every one's output is some one else's input.

Here are a couple of pieces that explain how global trade makes all involved richer:

Decline and Fall
Desolation Row

Short reads with links.