Do you especially purchase goods produced in your own country?

[general_kill]

When I don't buy from another country, my money will go to my own country. It's an economic cycle where my countrymen and I exchange goods and services.

If I purchase from another country rather than my own, all I have done is employ one more person in that other country, rather than my own country. Especially in an economic downturn, purchasing from one own's country is even better, because the number of jobs is very low (comparatively). A manufacturing plant in China won't make sure that poor unemployed Joe in Canada will get a job, and be able to put food on his table.

You know that North Korea has an economy where they trade almost exclusively with themselves? Thank god their money didn't create jobs for people in other countries!

Let me break down the fallacy in your post. When you buy from inefficient suppliers, total production goes down. That's bad for the economy as a whole. And just because your purchase made one of your countryman richer, it makes another one of your countryman poorer.

Let's say you buy American inside of Chinese. The Chinese will have less money to buy from America and have less tax money to lend to us. This means our exporting industry will suffer and government financing will come under pressure as a result of your patriotic purchase.

 

[general_kill]

I'd like to try then. You mentioned it was a fallacy to assume that buying exclusively from one's country is a "good" thing. First and foremost, what's "good" is a subjective one. The world's production in itself may not matter to those people making their conclusion that it's a "good" thing. They might just care about producing jobs and strengthening the national market; regardless of how it affects international markets. If so, then it not a fallacy to the very least assume [but not be positively 100% Vulcan logically sure] that buying home products is a good thing. as long as you accept the premise that buying national will produce the result. To be valid and not a fallacy, it doesn't even matter whether the premise is correct or not. As long as you accept the premise, and the "good" conclusion follows the premise, then it's not a fallacy.

Oh no; a family isn't getting a job in Pakistan. For shame; if only logic and fallacies gave a damn about politics.

Ok dude, read my previous post and then read this.

A family isn't getting a job in Pakistan, they won't have money to buy crap from America. Even if they don't buy from America directly, they will buy products made from products from America. Even if a country has an embargo against us, they will purchase from other countries who will use the money to purchase from us.

It's not a one way street where you give another country money and they just keep it. This is not to mention the fact that if we put up tariffs and buy local, you put economic pressure on other nations. And guess what, when under pressure, they will adopt the same measures to offset ours. Suddenly our exporting industries take a hit just like theirs did.

 

[carmen510]

Depending on whether you would consider me Chinese or American, Yes either way, but unintentionally.

 

[Defiant47]

You know that North Korea has an economy where they trade almost exclusively with themselves? Thank god their money didn't create jobs for people in other countries!

Let me break down the fallacy in your post. When you buy from inefficient suppliers, total production goes down. That's bad for the economy as a whole. And just because your purchase made one of your countryman richer, it makes another one of your countryman poorer.

Let's say you buy American inside of Chinese. The Chinese will have less money to buy from America and have less tax money to lend to us. This means our exporting industry will suffer and government financing will come under pressure as a result of your patriotic purchase.

Obviously this is to be done in moderation and when needed. I'm willing to let total production go down in order to make sure that those 100,000 jobs recently lost come back to Canada - since nobody's buying products made by 100,000 jobs in China.

It's kind of like a self-imposed and diplomatically-free tariff system. 100,000 jobs are lost in Canada while it's business as usual all the way in China. The government should step in and impose additional tariffs in order to make products made in China unprofitable compared to when they're made in Canada, bringing corporation's industries back here (and pretending that we can stop this or do it at such a degree that it's a perfect 100,000 jobs transferred back). Honestly, I don't know why the government doesn't do that, but I suspect it's something about diplomacy, free trade, and making sure they will deal with us in the future.

Now if I purchase only Canadian products, then likewise the Chinese-made products prove less profitable. The corporations move the industries back here (assuming perfectly 100,000 jobs again), but our government never pissed off China and they can't do anything about it.

Obviously an economy cannot sustain itself entirely in this modern age, and the benefits of trade are numerous. But I'm willing to pay $30 more for my Ipods (lets say) to make sure that Canadian workers have jobs instead of the Chinese having jobs (which would, in an overall economy view, mean that only a part of the outsourced industry would come back).

 

[general_kill]

Obviously this is to be done in moderation and when needed. I'm willing to let total production go down in order to make sure that those 100,000 jobs recently lost come back to Canada - since nobody's buying products made by 100,000 jobs in China.

It's kind of like a self-imposed and diplomatically-free tariff system. 100,000 jobs are lost in Canada while it's business as usual all the way in China. The government should step in and impose additional tariffs in order to make products made in China unprofitable compared to when they're made in Canada, bringing corporation's industries back here (and pretending that we can stop this or do it at such a degree that it's a perfect 100,000 jobs transferred back). Honestly, I don't know why the government doesn't do that, but I suspect it's something about diplomacy, free trade, and making sure they will deal with us in the future.

Now if I purchase only Canadian products, then likewise the Chinese-made products prove less profitable. The corporations move the industries back here (assuming perfectly 100,000 jobs again), but our government never pissed off China and they can't do anything about it.

Obviously an economy cannot sustain itself entirely in this modern age, and the benefits of trade are numerous. But I'm willing to pay $30 more for my Ipods (lets say) to make sure that Canadian workers have jobs instead of the Chinese having jobs (which would, in an overall economy view, mean that only a part of the outsourced industry would come back).

But you could have spent that $30 buying from another Canadian! What do you have to say for the Canadian you screwed over because you didn't have $30 to spend on him?!

 

[QuoVadisNation]

Ok dude, read my previous post and then read this.

A family isn't getting a job in Pakistan, they won't have money to buy crap from America. Even if they don't buy from America directly, they will buy products made from products from America. Even if a country has an embargo against us, they will purchase from other countries who will use the money to purchase from us.

It's not a one way street where you give another country money and they just keep it. This is not to mention the fact that if we put up tariffs and buy local, you put economic pressure on other nations. And guess what, when under pressure, they will adopt the same measures to offset ours. Suddenly our exporting industries take a hit just like theirs did.

We are talking about the fallacy and goods to buy national. We're not talking about the good behind protectivism and trade-wars. People can still buy national and be against everything you portend. What I take objection too is the idea that you mix the two when they can be separate and still wouldn't affect the economy all that much but in fact might help national instead and wouldn't be strong enough to spark any sort of trade-war (like my third paragraph in my re-edited post). You're putting words into peoples' mouths and possibly also hurting national by lumping the two together.

 

[Defiant47]

But you could have spent that $30 buying from another Canadian! What do you have to say for the Canadian you screwed over because you didn't have $30 to spend on him?!

Obviously for this to work, I would have to spend $30 less on non-Canadian products. Otherwise, I'd just be shifting which products I purchase Canadian and non-Canadian.

If I buy a Canadian Ipod for $30 more, and since I have $30 less than usual purchase a non-Canadian CD Player that I would have purchased Canadian for $30 dollars more but now don't, then I have achieved nothing. No, I will buy the Canadian Ipod for $30 more, and as such I'll buy one less Walkman that I regularly purchase non-Canadian. (These product examples are giving me a headache lol)

 

[general_kill]

We are talking about the fallacy and goods to buy national. We're not talking about the good behind trade-wars. People can still buy national and be against everything you portend. What I take objection too is the idea that you mix the two when they can be separate and still wouldn't affect the economy all that much but in fact might help national instead and wouldn't be strong enough to spark any sort of trade-war (like my third paragraph in my re-edited post).

I have seriously no idea where you are getting it.

My original post states the fallacy of buying national and supporting inefficient suppliers for the economy as a whole and I am correct in my statement. You have not refuted the statement using economic principles and instead depend on abstract ideas and hypotheticals while dismissing perfectly legitimate contentions with no refutation.

For the record, even if free trade does not directly benefit us due to disproportionate multiplier distribution, it will still expand the world's supply of capital goods which increases the world's production possibility even more. That increase will eventually offset current losses.

In addition, by putting pressure on our industries to be more efficient, we are also promoting domestic innovation. It's a well establish principle that policies and actions which support inefficiency stifle innovation.

 

[Defiant47]

I have seriously no idea where you are getting it.

My original post states the fallacy of buying national and supporting inefficient suppliers for the economy as a whole and I am correct in my statement. You have not refuted the statement using economic principles and instead depend on abstract ideas and hypotheticals while dismissing perfectly legitimate contentions with no refutation.

For the record, even if free trade does not directly benefit us due to disproportionate multiplier distribution, it will still expand the world's supply of capital goods which increases the world's production possibility even more. That increase will eventually offset current losses.

In addition, by putting pressure on our industries to be more efficient, we are also promoting domestic innovation. It's a well establish principle that policies and actions which support inefficiency stifle innovation.

OK, let me outline my point in your terms. I am willing to sacrifice efficiency in order to bring a higher quality of life to Canadians (at least in recessionary periods).

 

[Dachs]

OK, let me outline my point in your terms. I am willing to sacrifice efficiency in order to bring a higher quality of life to Canadians (at least in recessionary periods).

Nationalistic of you.

 

[general_kill]

OK, let me outline my point in your terms. I am willing to sacrifice efficiency in order to bring a higher quality of life to Canadians (at least in recessionary periods).

That post wasn't directed at you...

Like the other post, I agree with your view fundamentally, but disagree with the method you use to promote it.

 

[Defiant47]

Nationalistic of you.

Indeed.

:::

 

[Defiant47]

That post wasn't directed at you...

Like the other post, I agree with your view fundamentally, but disagree with the method you use to promote it.

Whoops, didn't realize that.

Like the other post, suggest a better method.

 

[general_kill]

Whoops, didn't realize that.

Like the other post, suggest a better method.

Economically speaking, and again, from a liberal point of view, we need to revamp our economy. We need to invest in industries that takes advantage of our large supply of college graduates. We have more PhD's and more graduate students than anyone else. In fact, our education is a major export because many powerful leaders around the world send their children to study here.

Of course you are from the U.S., so I'm unsure of how this applies to you.

There needs to be a large investment in our domestic industry and it really does take the government to kick start a sustainable movement.

Also, we really do need to cut our dependence on oil (as cliche as it sounds) because it is extremely inefficient. The money that goes to the middle east does not get used efficiently. Oil itself is inefficient and unsustainable. As far as externalities are concerned, oil has the nasty habit of causing wars and instability. Just look at what the oil prices over last summer did.

There's a lot more I can say about the subject, but I just don't have the time.

 

[eastsidebagel]

Just when it comes to beer and such. Besides this I absolutely don't care.

 

[Perfection]

It's a fallacy to assume I assumed. I clearly did not direct my comment to anyone in here exclusively nor have I quoted anyone which further supports my claim.

Well then you're just being off topic! It's highly weird to make up something to argue against that noone would reasonably believe!

You can buy from whoever you want, your actions are account for by economics because you place value on the origin of your supplier. However, for the economy as a whole, if you buy products that are inefficiently created relative to other suppliers, total production possibility decreases. So thanks to you, perhaps a whole family starves somewhere in the world. Jerk.

But only in your little fantasy world does the price you pay represent the actual cost to current and future productivity. Putting in preferential treatment to certain locations can help offset that disparity.

If you want to remove ceteris paribus from the equation, then I can make wild claims like if you buy from America, you are not equating the tax money that goes into funding weapons that kill innocent civilians! These things are externalities and it is hard to properly balance their effects. But we do have to admit that China has a poor environmental record while we have a poor war record in recent history. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people died from our tax money in Iraq. Millions more have died from our tax money over the past few decades including our military operations, black op operations, and military funding to countries like Israel, Iraq, Iran, and countless other countries. Then again, China is funding our debt from the money we give them... and it just becomes a huge cycle of nonsense.

Well, getting a complete account for everything is of course impossible. However, I think the mess can be sorted out well enough to impact consumer decisions. The general trend is readily apparent that Chinese productivity has far more associated negative externalities to it. Buying Chinese stuff is directly paying into their ecological destruction, whereas increasing US tax money doesn't strike me as a particularly destabilizing action.

Let's say you buy American inside of Chinese. The Chinese will have less money to buy from America and have less tax money to lend to us. This means our exporting industry will suffer and government financing will come under pressure as a result of your patriotic purchase.

Right, but under most cases that is more than offset by the domestic purchase you just made.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Oh don't over think it. I'm not Canadian but I answered as such!

Ok.

Short answer no. I don't think I ever buy Japanese because it's Japanese. Checking where something is made is quite common here though, and Japanese products command higher prices. I don't mind paying extra, but the cheaper Chinese products are generally of equal quality. I leave it to others to pay the nationalism tax.

 

[Elliot]

Perfection: your responses sounds like "don't buy Chinese because of the negative externalities" rather than "buy local". Besides the "I enjoy doing business with people I know standpoint", what are your thoughts on US foreign trade with Europe or India or Africa?

 

[general_kill]

Well then you're just being off topic! It's highly weird to make up something to argue against that noone would reasonably believe!

Yet you are arguing with me... If I'm the crazy hobo arguing with myself on the subway, you are the guy who butts into the argument.

 

[classical_hero]

Where possible I try and buy Australian, but I will not go out of my way to just buy Australian just for the sake of Australia. Free trade is a good thing and something that allows nations to increase their wealth. Realistically the first option should be the default, since if it is reasonable for you to buy from your own country. It is unreasonable to buy from your country when it does not suit your needs.