I propose a radical idea for global trade

[Le Jacquelope]

Rhetorical question: would you buy cheap goods from Nazi Germany if they were still around?

Under globalist free trade, the answer has to be yes.

If Hitler were sane, he would have used Jewish labor to build cheap Volkswagens and other goods, and undercut his Western competitors, and used that money to oppress his people even more.

Now replace "Jews" with "girls" and "slavery" with "extermination", and you have today's China.

Would you buy goods made in Nazi Germany? Well, you do buy from China, and that is far worse. China's Government aggressively puts down pro-democracy protestors, prisoners are harvested for organ transplants, and baby girls are murdered by the millions by their parents, in preference of boys. China is rife with pollution and is notorious for its disregard for worker safety, not to mention wages the likes of which America can never compete with.


Free trade with undemocratic despotic nations with such patterns of ongoing mass slaughter such as China, undermines the credibility and the very economic feasibility of Western democracies. It says, in effect, that Western democracies are unprofitable, and that the new place to do business is in the most horrible parts of the world. Free trade has shown that it's better to cut corners than to cut pollution, abuse and human cruelty.

Western democracies will never be able to compete for jobs against these countries. They'll always be able to do things cheaper, and with fewer restrictions upon corporations. And they will take the money they make off of the West to bolster their dictatorships and crony system of capitalism. Plus, they're owning more and more of our debt, and are coming into a position of severe economic leverage.

Free trade does not spread human rights - democracy does.


I propose that America end all trade with the sweatshop dictatorships of the world, and end all trade barriers with Europe and Canada. Establish a renewed pledge between the new Western trading block to preserve democracy, defend workers' safety and basic human rights, and enforce pollution controls. Move all industrial and cyber (software) production back to the West until the other nations of the world learn to accept democracy and human rights.

I do not agree that the Western working class should be forced to give up their livelihoods to "improve" the lives of those living in super polluted, undemocratic, despotic nations. These nations should improve themselves, just as we improved ourselves.

Those who wish to enrich the lives of people living in sweatshop nations can of course choose to privately donate.

 

[rgraham666]

Capitalism has always preferred authoritarian states to democratic ones.

There's few policy changes. The people in power stay there forever. There's little concern for the people at large, they're just machinery to be used and discarded when no longer useful. Anyone who protests or dissents is an 'Enemy of The State' and imprisoned or executed.

It's wonderful for business.

As my favourite writer puts it, "Capitalism was content under Hitler, very content under Mussolini, happy under Franco and delirious under Pinochet."

 

[amicus]

Sighs...Gollee, LT, what a can of worms you propose, tongue in cheek I hope?

General MacArthur recommended 'nuking Nunking' during the Korean conflict when the Chinese Communists, backed by the Russian Communists opposed the United Nations 'peacekeeping force' and the SEATO alliance of nations.

But ole Harry S. didn't like the idea of a radioactive world and fired Mac, sighs....

As you well know, the United States and other quasi civilized nations embargoed, forbid trade, with Communist Cuba and Communist Russia and Communist China for a long long time.

Since you know all that, perhaps one should expose the root and real motivation of your diatribe against the free market place and Capitalism in general.

The consistent thrust of your post is that you want, 'Nations' to conduct trade, manage affairs, set standards, impose tariff's, regulations and restrictions, all based on some warm milk Utopian dream that Governments are better suited to determine the lifestyles of individuals better than we private citizens are.

Your little absolutism here I thought Secular Humanists/Modern Progressives, had no absolutes?) "...
Free trade does not spread human rights - democracy does., is an aphorism at best but more importantly underlines the fact that you do not understand the relationship between free trade and a free people, aka, Democracy.

Western civilization has an option: to isolate the billions of people in China, Russia , India and Asia in general and ignore their nuclear arsenal, attempt to contain the horror this socialism and most likely engender another Cold War scenario; or..."

Or attempt to seduce the captive peoples of Communism by consumer goods and trade.

While many are not comfortable with that alternative, it is by far the wiser choice.

You would realize all that, doesn't take a rocket scientist, were you not so immersed in anti capitalist propaganda.

As the western world is discovering, it is impossible to 'impose' Democracy on a nation, especially one with a value system that is not western oriented, by that I mean, Greek, essentially.

'Protecting the working class' is such a plebian phrase, common and vulgar.

All it really means is that you want the entire labor force unionized, guaranteed a 'living wage, afforded free medical care, in others words the typical 'nanny' state of a managed and command economy.

Why not? All you lose is human freedom and dignity.

Who needs that anyway?



Amicus...

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Sighs...Gollee, LT, what a can of worms you propose, tongue in cheek I hope?

General MacArthur recommended 'nuking Nunking' during the Korean conflict when the Chinese Communists, backed by the Russian Communists opposed the United Nations 'peacekeeping force' and the SEATO alliance of nations.

But ole Harry S. didn't like the idea of a radioactive world and fired Mac, sighs....

As you well know, the United States and other quasi civilized nations embargoed, forbid trade, with Communist Cuba and Communist Russia and Communist China for a long long time.

Since you know all that, perhaps one should expose the root and real motivation of your diatribe against the free market place and Capitalism in general.

Here we go again with your "Capitalism is God" preaching...

The consistent thrust of your post is that you want, 'Nations' to conduct trade, manage affairs, set standards, impose tariff's, regulations and restrictions, all based on some warm milk Utopian dream that Governments are better suited to determine the lifestyles of individuals better than we private citizens are.

Name me one surviving first world nation in which Governments don't to some extent determine the lifestyles of its people.

If you want a Utopia where the Government is minimal, try Somalia.

Your little absolutism here I thought Secular Humanists/Modern Progressives, had no absolutes?) "...

I am a humanist, not a Secular Humanist. I do believe in absolutes. Just as you believe that capitalism is God.

Free trade does not spread human rights - democracy does.

, is an aphorism at best but more importantly underlines the fact that you do not understand the relationship between free trade and a free people, aka, Democracy.

Our founding fathers established a representative democracy first, and Capitalism came second. They did not establish Capitalism first.

Capitalism depends upon Democracy for human rights to flourish.

Western civilization has an option: to isolate the billions of people in China, Russia , India and Asia in general and ignore their nuclear arsenal, attempt to contain the horror this socialism and most likely engender another Cold War scenario; or..."

A nuclear arsenal they've gained from us, mind you.

Or attempt to seduce the captive peoples of Communism by consumer goods and trade.

That has not worked. Take a look at Russia. They're almost no better now than the USSR was. China has barely budged from their hardline stance.

Your idea has not worked.

While many are not comfortable with that alternative, it is by far the wiser choice.

You would realize all that, doesn't take a rocket scientist, were you not so immersed in anti capitalist propaganda.

What you don't realize is free trade hasn't softened hardline dictatorships - it has only bolstered them.

What ruined the USSR? Diplomacy, and luring their citizens away from their horrible world, to ours. Not degrading our world, down to theirs, as the Right is doing now.

As the western world is discovering, it is impossible to 'impose' Democracy on a nation, especially one with a value system that is not western oriented, by that I mean, Greek, essentially.

Of course we can't impose democracy. We can put them aside until they develop it or their people leave.

'Protecting the working class' is such a plebian phrase, common and vulgar.

Anything involving the working class is common and vulgar to you. You define "let them eat cake" as a virtue.

All it really means is that you want the entire labor force unionized, guaranteed a 'living wage, afforded free medical care, in others words the typical 'nanny' state of a managed and command economy.

I want the labor force to have the option to unionize. Organized labor, organized management, what makes one worse than the other?

Why not? All you lose is human freedom and dignity.

We're losing that by the truckload following your "Dollar is God" philosophy.

Who needs that anyway?



Amicus...

Why is it that no nation in the civilized world follows your laissez-faire point of view?

 

[CharleyH]

Rhetorical question: would you buy cheap goods from Nazi Germany if they were still around?

Under globalist free trade, the answer has to be yes.

If Hitler were sane, he would have used Jewish labor to build cheap Volkswagens and other goods, and undercut his Western competitors, and used that money to oppress his people even more.

Now replace "Jews" with "girls" and "slavery" with "extermination", and you have today's China.

Would you buy goods made in Nazi Germany? Well, you do buy from China, and that is far worse. China's Government aggressively puts down pro-democracy protestors, prisoners are harvested for organ transplants, and baby girls are murdered by the millions by their parents, in preference of boys. China is rife with pollution and is notorious for its disregard for worker safety, not to mention wages the likes of which America can never compete with.


Free trade with undemocratic despotic nations with such patterns of ongoing mass slaughter such as China, undermines the credibility and the very economic feasibility of Western democracies. It says, in effect, that Western democracies are unprofitable, and that the new place to do business is in the most horrible parts of the world. Free trade has shown that it's better to cut corners than to cut pollution, abuse and human cruelty.

Western democracies will never be able to compete for jobs against these countries. They'll always be able to do things cheaper, and with fewer restrictions upon corporations. And they will take the money they make off of the West to bolster their dictatorships and crony system of capitalism. Plus, they're owning more and more of our debt, and are coming into a position of severe economic leverage.

Free trade does not spread human rights - democracy does.


I propose that America end all trade with the sweatshop dictatorships of the world, and end all trade barriers with Europe and Canada. Establish a renewed pledge between the new Western trading block to preserve democracy, defend workers' safety and basic human rights, and enforce pollution controls. Move all industrial and cyber (software) production back to the West until the other nations of the world learn to accept democracy and human rights.

I do not agree that the Western working class should be forced to give up their livelihoods to "improve" the lives of those living in super polluted, undemocratic, despotic nations. These nations should improve themselves, just as we improved ourselves.

Those who wish to enrich the lives of people living in sweatshop nations can of course choose to privately donate.

First, I want to ask whether or not you were a regular German who lived in Nazi Germany? If not, then I doubt you can answer your own question.

Second? Do you live in China? What is the minimum wage? How does that compare to the minimum wage of America based on cost of living? If you don't know that than perhaps you should reassess your post.

 

[amicus]

Here we go again with your "Capitalism is God" preaching...

Being an atheist the word, God, has no functional meaning to me.


Name me one surviving first world nation in which Governments don't to some extent determine the lifestyles of its people.

Human freedom is a relatively recent discovery terms of a nationwide concept. The history of the entire world is one oppressive regime after another, each marching to a different drummer. Even in early America, at the time of the Revolution, 25 percent wanted to remain under King George, only 25 percent wanted Indepedence and most of the rest just wanted to be left alone, except for the French, we chased them into Canada where they continue to rot.

If you want a Utopia where the Government is minimal, try Somalia.

Not worthy of an answer.


I am a humanist, not a Secular Humanist. I do believe in absolutes. Just as you believe that capitalism is God.

Name just one basic self evident or axiomatic absolute that you, 'believe in' Capitalism does not replace your god, essentially the recognition and protection of individual human rights becomes the foundation for all values. The protected right to exchange goods and services freely among free individuals, what you call Capitalism, is the essence of all that follows, including a free and democratic society.

Our founding fathers established a representative democracy first, and Capitalism came second. They did not establish Capitalism first.

Wrong. They wrote a declaration of independence that announced the innate rights of life and liberty.

Capitalism depends upon Democracy for human rights to flourish.

Wrong again. Governments do not bestow human rights, they only protect and defend them. We possess those rights by birth.


A nuclear arsenal they've gained from us, mind you.

They certainly did not have the freedom to make the discovery, they had to 'steal' it from a free people.


That has not worked. Take a look at Russia. They're almost no better now than the USSR was. China has barely budged from their hardline stance.


Like a child, the left wants instant gratification. Rome was not built in a day, nor will Russia and China achieve a free society easily.

Your idea has not worked.

Wrong again, it has worked marvelously. In a world the Malthusians still believe cannot support a billion people, the magic of the free market place now supports many billions with a better life than ever before in all of history.


What you don't realize is free trade hasn't softened hardline dictatorships - it has only bolstered them.

As I said...give it time.


What ruined the USSR? Diplomacy, and luring their citizens away from their horrible world, to ours. Not degrading our world, down to theirs, as the Right is doing now.

What ruined the Soviet Union was that it became a graveyard for human freedom. They had to build a god damned wall to keep the slave in. And keep confiscating wealth where ever they conquered as their slave society could not produce enough to even feed themselves.


Of course we can't impose democracy. We can put them aside until they develop it or their people leave.

"Put them aside?" That is like saying leave your young children isolated in a room until they grow up. Foolish thinking.


Anything involving the working class is common and vulgar to you. You define "let them eat cake" as a virtue.

Wrong again. The working class is not common and vulgar, the socialist apologists who feed off them are.


I want the labor force to have the option to unionize. Organized labor, organized management, what makes one worse than the other?

Management organized on a national basis like the ILWU? C'mon, you can do better than that. Unions have had declining membership for years because they are corrupt and use violence to achieve their goals. It is Unions that destroyed auto manufacturing in the USA by their demands and unfair practices. Almost all of unionized industry has left the nation because business cannot compete and survive in a world market with Union Labor, high wages and benefits.



We're losing that by the truckload following your "Dollar is God" philosophy.


Why is it that no nation in the civilized world follows your laissez-faire point of view?

~~~

Although you will never, ever admit it, your argument has been devastated not once, but twice.

You or no one else can defend slavery, a forced, command economy, as it violates every human concept of individual freedom and liberty and attempts to replace the individual with the collective.

You lose every time, both the moral and the ethical argument, but also the economic one as the free market works and is apparent to all.

Amicus...

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Rhetorical question: would you buy cheap goods from Nazi Germany if they were still around?

...

I propose that America end all trade with the sweatshop dictatorships of the world, and end all trade barriers with Europe and Canada.

...

Would you do this even if they, as countries, traded with the likes of China?

 

[S-Des]

Would you do this even if they, as countries, traded with the likes of China?

Well, France & Russia traded illegally with Iraq during the UN Sanctions, so do we need to rename french fries again?

 

[CharleyH]

do we need to rename french fries again?

LOL - I got that. We can rename them .... "I-Fries" ... it's marketable damnit!

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Would you do this even if they, as countries, traded with the likes of China?

The idea is that the entire Western world would agree to the same principles. I don't imagine it will be insanely hard to sell to the voting public.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

First, I want to ask whether or not you were a regular German who lived in Nazi Germany? If not, then I doubt you can answer your own question.

Actually, despite not being a German, I can.

I can because I loathe trading with any country where despotism and hyper exploitation of workers is the norm.

Second? Do you live in China? What is the minimum wage? How does that compare to the minimum wage of America based on cost of living? If you don't know that than perhaps you should reassess your post.

China's minimum wage is lower than America's. Far lower.

But this goes far beyond wages. Companies relocate there because they're allowed to save money by cutting corners on safety, pollution controls and quality control as well.

To allow them to behave like this completely undermines our society's values.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

~~~

Although you will never, ever admit it, your argument has been devastated not once, but twice.

You or no one else can defend slavery, a forced, command economy, as it violates every human concept of individual freedom and liberty and attempts to replace the individual with the collective.

You lose every time, both the moral and the ethical argument, but also the economic one as the free market works and is apparent to all.

Amicus...

Since you don't have time to address salient points of mine, I don't have time to babysit you either. I refuse to get into a flame war with you when your arguments and your intolerance flame you better than I ever could.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Well, France & Russia traded illegally with Iraq during the UN Sanctions, so do we need to rename french fries again?

LOL, heck we gave Saddam his WMD's.

I take the "from now on" approach to this.

 

[WRJames]

We have conveniently forgotten how ugly the Industrial Revolution was in England and the United States. In England, the rural population was forcibly displaced, sent to the city where they became beggars, thieves and whores who were then executed or deported (this is the world of Dickens) -- the US had sweatshops and exploitation of women and children on a massive scale.

This is not to say that what is going on in India and China is okay -- but it is better than the alternative of no economic development at all.

As for global protection of rights for women and children -- guess which country is blocking treaties in the UN? A hint -- it's not China. It's not Russia or India, or even the Sudan.

 

[amicus]

Since you don't have time to address salient points of mine, I don't have time to babysit you either. I refuse to get into a flame war with you when your arguments and your intolerance flame you better than I ever could.

~~~


Yeah, sure...take your panties and go home lil girl, ya been reamed.


amicus

 

[CharleyH]

Actually, despite not being a German, I can.

I can because I loathe trading with any country where despotism and hyper exploitation of workers is the norm.


China's minimum wage is lower than America's. Far lower.

But this goes far beyond wages. Companies relocate there because they're allowed to save money by cutting corners on safety, pollution controls and quality control as well.

To allow them to behave like this completely undermines our society's values.

Your opinion is not good enough for me to support you or to change my mind on any issue.

Actually? I will add that America has one of the worst records for polluting in the world. Start there, for now.

 

[cantdog]

...and please quit quoting that goofball. Thanks.

America itself denies the right of workers to organize. America blocks all UN initiatives to quell the slave states' practices. Wal-Mart's low prices are largely the result of using Chinese slave-produced goods and denying its workers the right to organize. And the irony is, if you're poor in this country, it's difficult to afford not to support Wal-Mart.

If by 'nations' banning slave labor, you intend politicians in various lawmaking bodies, you can forget it. Those are the beneficiaries of the capitalism you descry. And people have already been trying to sell the idea to the voting public that sweatshops and so forth are not tolerable. The word is out, it's repeated all the time, but people watch television, and media shills for power. The message is not being picked up on any too well. Nearly half the country voted for Bush, for instance, and then did so again.

 

[gauchecritic]

One more probably rhetorical question: Why isn't The People's Republic of China a democracy?

The reason that it's a rhetorical question is that you probably never classed the USSR as a democracy either.

Does none trading mean that Nike and several other major companies aren't allowed to promote and encourage the slavery too?

Oh and before you barricade the west into none trade make sure you've stocked up on computer parts (oil too, or does Saudi not come under 'evil dictatorship'? Doesn't really matter either way because china will be willing to pay for arab oil at whatever price.)

Edited to add: they'll probably just move everything to India anyway.

 

[WRJames]

One more probably rhetorical question: Why isn't The People's Republic of China a democracy?

India IS a democracy, a very vibrant one, and it has many of the same characteristics as China -- elimination of female babies, sweat shops, etc.

 

[Pure]

i do see your point, loving, and certainly it looks bad to be too palsy with various dictators.

that said, i don't see how to avoid trading with nations with 'slaves.' laws passed can always be circumvented. you may remember attempts to boycott S. African goods. i'm not sure it had much effect.

it's also arguable that your isolating these countries makes things worse.
further, the 'slaves' in the sweatshops are there voluntarily. why. because 50 cents a day guaranteed is better than what they would have otherwise. they *line up* for some of these jobs.

it's further arguable that you're mixing agendas; there are commercial issues and there are human rights/moral issues. what you're doing is saying, "Mr Jones, I'm not selling to you, or buying from you because you abuse your wife." Very odd, and likely ineffective. one might say that the whole point of "trade", buying and selling is to *depersonalize* the events. if you're selling your car, you don't check to see if the fellow's an adulterer; you check what's relevant to a commercial transaction, e.g. does he issue bad checks, not have a job, etc.

lastly, it's almost impossible to state what practices would bring a nation, under your plan, into boycott. how high do the wages have to be? what benefits? if Nike says "OK, 60 cents per shoe instead of 50," would that satisfy you? how do you factor in the general situation and lack of devt in a country. e.g. if the normal peasant makes 5 cents a day, and has a chance to work in a modern factory for 50 cents a day, why do you say it's slavery, intolerable, etc.

---
PS. one factor left out of the analysis re workers' rights. *the US and its companies prefer workers to be tightly controlled*. it's great if those organizing a strike get arrested, so production can continue. US companies go to the third word so that they DO NOT have unions etc. deal with. in sum, in yet another way, your plan flies in the face of a commerical approach: "I buy goods from you precisely because the workers' union is impotent. I'm virtually guaranteed delivery." Instead you want: "Mr X, i'll buy from you, because your workers' unions are strong, as they should be, strong enough to halt production. But I don't mind non-timely delivery since i LOVE seeing empowered workers."

 

[R. Richard]

further, the 'slaves' in the sweatshops are there voluntarily. why. because 50 cents a day guaranteed is better than what they would have otherwise. they *line up* for some of these jobs.

lastly, it's almost impossible to state what practices would bring a nation, under your plan, into boycott. how high do the wages have to be? what benefits? if Nike says "OK, 60 cents per shoe instead of 50," would that satisfy you? how do you factor in the general situation and lack of devt in a country. e.g. if the normal peasant makes 5 cents a day, and has a chance to work in a modern factory for 50 cents a day, why do you say it's slavery, intolerable, etc.

---

You have hit the nail on the head! The 'exploitation' of workers is normally a simple matter of economics. During the industrial revolution, new machinery made it possible to raise enough to feed a population with less farm workers. Thus, the unneeded farm workers migrated to the cities to try to find jobs in the new industries. Of course, conditions were brutal in the factories, but it was better than starving to death in the countryside where there were no jobs for a lot of people.

By the way, after a while, some of the more intelligent industrialists began to realize that they needed skilled, more educated workers and they raised wages to attract what they needed. The workers benefitted, not because of kindly capitalists, but because of capitalists trying to maximize their own profits.

Can an American, making $20 an hour compete with a Chinese making $.50 an hour. Strangely, the answer is quite possibly. Labor is only one cost. There is shipping and handling, design to market, ability to react to changes in taste, etc.

Locally, there is a factory that gets parts from a factory in Mexico. The whole situation never worked until the local company found a Mexican immigrant who was willing to go back and run the Mexican operation. With their own guy in a position of power in the Mexican operation, the local factory gets what they want and need, not what the Mexican guys think they want and need. As you might imagine, the costs in the Mexican factory have gone up quite a bit since the local Mexican guy arrived back in Mexico.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

This analogy seems to be a regular theme in some circles; last month Mussolini was the comparison, and I said the following. It refers more to the economy there than the (non) advance of liberalism, but that that is addressed parenthetically and the rest is relevent:

Let's put this in context. China is evolving from a communist dictatorship on the edge of starvation into something better. Key word: evolve. By definition evolution happens gradually. Of course I would rather that 1989 had been successful and China now have a liberal government. I have a dream that a day will come when having been in Tienamen Square as a demonstrator will be considered an almost mandatory qualification for office in a free China.

Obviously they are not there yet. But are you prepared to condemn the reality that there has been a massive reduction of poverty in China, and that hundreds of millions of people enjoy standards of living unimaginable just a generation ago, because they still do not enjoy political freedom, and a stubborn dictatorship still infringes the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? They didn't have those things before the economic liberalization either, plus they were starving. So now they've got half a loaf, and this improves the liklihood of attaining freedom before long.

Reality is what it is. It's easy to condemn the lack of individual liberty in China - who doesn't? Now, given the context I just described, what about the rest, the magnificient acheivement of hundreds of millions enjoying profound improvement in their material well being - do you condemn that also?

What are you saying - that you want Mao back? That evolution is not allowed - it has to be all or nothing before you will recognize that anything has improved for the people there? That none really is better than half a loaf, even when the progress to date greatly improves the chances of a liberal system eventually coming about?

~~~~~

In short, you have an unbalanced view, Pure. You only see the costs, but none of the benefits. That’s not to say the costs should be ignored or left unaddressed. But neither should the benefits be ignored or deprecated, which is what you have done.

The following quote from Eric Hoffer illustrates what I’m talking about:

"Free men are aware of the imperfections inherent in human affairs, and they are willing to fight and die for that which is not perfect.

"They know that basic human problems can have no final solutions, that our freedom, justice, equality, and so on are far from absolute, that the good life is compounded of half measures, compromises, lesser evils, and gropings toward the perfect.

"The rejection of approximations and the insistence on absolutes are the manifestations of a nihilism that loathes freedom, tolerance, and equity."

Hoffer sometimes spoke of “the childish demand for perfection” and once asked, almost despairingly, “Is there ANY social order which would satisfy the disaffected artist and intellectual?”

 

[JamesSD]

China has begun its slow march towards Democratization. There's a burgeoning middle class, hungry for opportunity. They're making money, and with money comes power. Unfortunately, when the democratic revolution comes, it's going to be very disruptive to the world. For the average American, it's impossible not to buy goods from China, although I suppose the true Patriot would spend their dollars on American made goods as much as possible.

 

[starrkers]

LT: a purely semantic point to your argument: "free trade" with America isn't free. There are many protectionist tariffs operating - your government wants its cake and to eat it too. It want free access to other economies, while restricting access to its.
Before railing against trade with China specifically, look at trade generally. The way it is set up, the US is perpetuating and even strengthening the imbalances.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

China has begun its slow march towards Democratization. There's a burgeoning middle class, hungry for opportunity. They're making money, and with money comes power. Unfortunately, when the democratic revolution comes, it's going to be very disruptive to the world. For the average American, it's impossible not to buy goods from China, although I suppose the true Patriot would spend their dollars on American made goods as much as possible.

Only if the value is equal or better. Otherwise it's welfare for the less efficient. That may sound heartless, but the less efficient are doomed anyway, so it's better to clip the dying branch early and clear the way for new growth in areas where we have a comparative advantage. Sinking more resources into a losing cause just draws out the pain, and prevents those involved from moving on to where exciting new opportunities may exist. Let the 'gales of creative destruction" blow, to paraphase economist Joseph Schumpeter.

For all the sturm and drang about China and "illegals," this nation has added 8 million jobs in the past four years, and they are not "burger flipper" jobs - opportunity is abundant for those with the human capital to take advantage. If there are credibly effective ways to help the displaced increase their human capital if needed, I would not oppose that.