nighttrain20 said:
Then you my man are the defnition of a TRUE WAL_MART SHOPPER! And I would guess drives a foreign car.
We are all guilty of wanting to buy things as inexpensive as possible. It has become totally unavoidable. But the biggest criminal in all of this is WAL-MART Followed by the foreign auto makers that have no major taxes or tariffs on thier vehicles to help the imbalance.
Of course I drive a foreign car. They are cheaper, and of much better quality. The same unions that are propogating the anti-walmart rhetoric are the same ones that destroyed our auto industry.
Additionally, if you ignore everything else I post, you MUST at least read the passage below. It completely debunks the myth that tariffs/quotas on the yellowmans' cars boosts our economy. I started bolding the important information in it, but every single word, sentence, etc is equally important. Read it and try and tell me you are still a protectionist.
MYTH #2:
High manufacturing wages must be protected regardless of the cost to the overall economy. Protectionists believe that American manufacturing wages must be protected from foreign competition regardless of the costs to the rest of the country. They also argue that foreign competition causes Americans to lose their jobs.
REALITY: Not true. The cost of saving jobs from foreign competition is higher consumer prices, which harm the economy. For example, when trade quotas were imposed on imported cars in the early 1980s, prices for domestic and imported cars rose by $2,000.<SUP>3</SUP> While these quotas may have preserved some auto workers' jobs, they also passed the cost on to the American consumer. Instead of being able to use this money to send their children to college, pay their mortgages, or put food on the table, American consumers are forced to subsidize the jobs of other Americans who cannot compete internationally. In short, protectionism takes money from the many to support the high wages or jobs of the few.
Moreover, trying to save a few jobs through protectionism may cause a net loss of many more jobs. When the U.S. imposed import quotas on the auto industry in the 1980s, the price of a new U.S. automobile increased by an average of 41 percent from 1981 to 1984. This was nearly twice the average rate of increase for all consumer prices during that time. While the auto industry can claim that these price hikes saved up to 22,000 jobs, they also prevented many consumers from buying new cars.<SUP>4</SUP> In fact, U.S. consumers bought around 1 million fewer U.S. cars after the U.S. imposed import quotas,<SUP>5</SUP> and the drop in sales forced the auto industry to lay off 50,000 workers in the late 1980s.<SUP>6</SUP> Thus, even though 22,000 jobs apparently were saved, the layoffs caused by the price increase actually produced a net loss of 30,000 jobs.
What is more, the price increases cost the American consumers $17 billion in higher auto prices. To save just one of those 22,000 auto jobs, American consumers had to pay $772,727. It would have been cheaper if the American taxpayer, through the U.S. government, could have given these auto workers a one-time check for $500,000 and then laid them off. Either way, whether by imposing tariffs or by paying laid-off workers directly, the U.S. government would be subsidizing relatively few workers at great expense to Americans generally.
Similarly, the number of retail jobs destroyed by years of import restrictions on textile and apparel products is far greater than the number of jobs created or saved in the textile manufacturing industry. Americans pay 58 percent higher prices for textile and apparel products because of U.S. trade restrictions. This amounts to $11 billion to $15 billion a year.<SUP>7</SUP> Thus, while protectionism saved 22,390 U.S. textile and apparel jobs in the 1980s, it cost the U.S. consumer $550,916 per job saved. However, once job losses in other industries, like the retail sector, are added to the equation, the cost of each job saved increases to well over $4 million.<SUP>8</SUP> It should be up to individual Americans, not government, to determine how much they pay for consumer goods. It is unfair to ask a school teacher making $26,000 a year to pay $2,000 more for a car to subsidize an auto worker who makes $50,000 a year.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/BG1077.cfm