Quote:Because those corporations need to do their production in the USA. They'll have to hire people to work in production facilities and that in turn will bring back the lifeblood to areas of the nation where it's been drained. Support industries can spring back up around the jobs created by those production facilities, and the marginal propensity to consume will increase as the distribution of income becomes more evened out through society resulting in a virtuous cycle of spending and production as wages are spent on product that is produced in the USA and the economic multiplier effect contributes to that, as each dollar spent in domestic production has a much larger national economic impact than money spent on imported goods.

 

I don't expect you to understand all of this as it's clear from the past that your understanding of economics is limited, but you can take my word for it, you want jobs, you want national security? You simply structure trade law such that corporate interests are aligned with national interests.

 

I'll ignore the little sly remark and continue the conversation.

 

you assume with higher operating cost companies would be forced to hire more employee's thus prime the economy. That's an outdated concept, with the technological advances higher operating cost are offset with lower labor cost. You don't need physical labor to work the manufacturing plants anymore, it's being done by robots. You don't need physical labor to manage the support store fronts it'll be done by the self check out lanes.

 

you've displayed the inability to accept the concept companies only exist for profit, they won't simply take less profit because you've decided it's enough for them. They will continue to offset their liabilities the easiest way possible, reduce labor.

---