John D. Giorgis wrote:
>>Further, moving your production lines to
>>the Third World is anything but helping the non-share-holding working class
>>Americans who loose their job because of that move.
>
>Oh, but it does. Let's say that a company sells X units of product at
>price Y in the US. After moving to another country, the sell the same
>product at lower price Z. Suddenly, all Americans have (Y-Z) * X more
>dollars to spend on other products. This creates increased demand for
>other goods, which boosts production AND JOBS in other sectors.
Uh, JDG... there's a few logical flaws in this arguement. First there's
that phrase "all Americans". It's not; it's just the Americans who happen
to be buying that product, whatever it is.
Second, you're assuming that those "other sectors" aren't shipping
*their* jobs off to other countries as well. Which, in general, is
incorrect.
Third, you're assuming the price will go down because the cost of
production has gone down. This *might* be true,if the competition is
good, but it's very often not true at all. Or am I wrong- has anyone
noticed the price of Nikes coming down? No? Imagine that. More likely the
price will not go down at all, and your (Y-Z)*X will go right into the
pockets of a select few.
Kat Feete
----------------------------------
"Let's just say that if complete and utter chaos was lightning, he'd
be the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet
copper armour and shouting 'All gods are bastards'."
-Terry Pratchett
