First let's all agree there is a problem with American manufacturing vs the global market with lower quality and cheaper wages. It's impossible for many domestic manufactures to offer the same price as foreign competitors but we have to be honest why if we really want to address the problem. American labor laws, regulations, and EPA requirements factor heavily into domestic manufacturing cost. The other factor is taxes, which has been partially addressed with the new tax law, but that's only one of the four real cost driver's. 

Instead of addressing the other three cost driving factors domestically we've elected to take the short cut and imposse selective Tarrifs. Which in turn is simply selective taxation. Instead of addressing our cost driver's we are now arbitrarily increase the cost of other selective goods. This is an end game loss, it undercuts the free markets ability to control supply and demand and sets a precident that the state should decide when a playing field is to unfair and impose selective taxation. 

You want American manufacturing to compete you say but I'll bet most people would oppose what it would really take to compete. It would take eliminating minimum wage, allowing children as young as 14 to work and rolling back regulations on interstate commerce. 

I'd support all three of those as opposed to Tarrifs. Where does it stop now? Why solar and washer machines? This is crony capitalism and any consrvative or libertarian should voice opposition to it.

Hello again, old friend.   Again, I have to disagree with your PREMISE!  

In the main, as it pertains to the best way to enhance and maintain America's competitiveness in the global Markets, I agree with you.  Moreover the PRESIDENT and the CURRENT ADMINISTRAITON agrees with you.  I humbly ask that you please take yes for an answer.  

This past year was probably the single largest cut in the regulatory state since Wilson/Roosevelt took us down the dark path of the ACTIVE STATE.  
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/..._22-1.html

For any 1 new rule proposed by the Executive branch some 20 were eliminated.  And for the first time in our lifetimes we are seeing tangible year to year DECREASES in the size of federal agencies.  

As for labor, the key areas of the Trump Victory were Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.  The first two are already right to work states and the third is trending in that direction.  

It is undeniable that this administrations view of global competitiveness is firmly based in supply side economics, in addition to the massive corporate tax reform that we just passed.  The average corporate tax rate in Europe was 18.5% (places like Ireland as low as 15%) ours was 35% now were dropping to 21%. The largest Tariff on the books was the repatriation tax that has been lowered.  

Massive Deregulation and tax cuts over the entire economy vs. two or three targeted tariffs against Currency Manipulators, Administrative barriers, Subsidized industries, or countries that themselves impose massive Tariffs?

---

14 year olds back in manufacturing seems like a very good plan.

I'd actually allow 8 year olds work, makes the workforce so much bigger and gives jobs to more Americans. Cheaper products and more profit for all!

---

14 year olds back in manufacturing seems like a very good plan.  

I'd actually allow 8 year olds work, makes the workforce so much bigger and gives jobs to more Americans.  Cheaper products and more profit for all!

Idle hands are the Devil's workshop.

---

14 year olds back in manufacturing seems like a very good plan.  

I'd actually allow 8 year olds work, makes the workforce so much bigger and gives jobs to more Americans.  Cheaper products and more profit for all!

Understand I'm not advocating that I'm only pointing out that to compete with cheap labor that would be one of the cost allowing child labor back domestically. 

Personally I don't have a problem with cheap labor overseas creating cheaper imported goods. I think American companies can still compete and the tire example I've used is an area that is proven to be true. 

My point is selectively impossing Tarrifs on hand picked industries is counter productive and undercuts supply side economics.

---

By that logic we should impose Tarrifs on anything made outside of Canada or Europe.

Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, for instance, are just fine.

---

Apparently this is more than a 2-sided question.   I have a different point of view from both of you. 

I don't think imported tires are of lower quality than American made tires.   But that's beside the point.  

Secondly, if a person wants to buy imported tires, they should have that right.  And I don't think restricting imported tires would have any effect whatsoever on the human rights of the overseas countries where those imported tires were made.  

But let's suppose that we did restrict cheaper imported tires.   Now everyone who needs new tires has to buy more expensive American made tires.   Because of this, people drive longer on old tires instead of getting new ones.  Fewer tires get sold and installed.   Raise the price, reduce the demand.  So fewer tires sold, fewer jobs at tire stores and fewer jobs at tire installers. 

The problem is, things that benefit society as a whole are much harder to see than things that benefit a particular special interest.   People say, for example, we need to restrict the inflow of cheap steel from overseas to save American steel jobs.   It's easier for people to see that we saved some jobs at a steel mill than it is for them to see that the price of everything that uses steel just went up and they're going to have to pay more for a whole lot of things. 

People save a whole lot of money on cheap imported goods, and that money that they saved flows into other businesses here in the United States.   Suppose a person who is living from paycheck to paycheck has to pay more for clothes, and shoes, and a TV set.  And then they need to fix their roof.   Do they postpone fixing their roof?   And with the price of shoes going up, do they buy fewer shoes?  And what effect does that have on jobs at shoe stores?  

Bottom line: I don't think we can control the flow of cheaper goods, and I don't think we should try to.    We need to either find a way to compete, or find some other business.   I am for free markets and free trade.

And yet our primary economic adversary has neither free markets nor free trade, so why grant them free access to our market at the same time they undercut us with immoral busuness behaviors? Cheap stuff at the cost of our moral fabric.

Our moral fabric is conducive to how we conduct ourselves. We can't evaluate the rest of the world's moral fabric and decide to only participate in trade with those select we find acceptable. That would be economicly unsustainable since the concept of morality is subjective and changes with whoever is in power.

---

Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, for instance, are just fine.

---

And yet our primary economic adversary has neither free markets nor free trade, so why grant them free access to our market at the same time they undercut us with immoral busuness behaviors? Cheap stuff at the cost of our moral fabric.

First of all, I don't think restricting imports will have any effect at all on the way other countries operate. 
Secondly, the title of this thread, "Addressing a real problem..."  I don't think it's a problem.
Thirdly, I don't want to pay more for everything just to pressure the Chinese into acting more like us. 

Here's what I'm saying to both you and Eric-

Let's look at the actual effect of importing goods from overseas.   Eric's tires, for example.  Suppose I have $1,000 to spend, and I can either buy Eric's domestically produced tires for $1,000, or I can buy imported tires for $800.   What do I do with the other $200?  I might go out to eat, which benefits the restaurant industry, and I might buy a pair of sneakers, which benefits the local shoe store, and I might go to the movies, which benefits the local movie theater.   Eric's tire store might he hurt, but the guy who is selling the imported tires would be helped.   The net result is, I've actually helped the economy by buying those imported tires.  

But let's imagine we do restrict import of tires from countries where we don't like their politics or their lack of regulation.   Would you be willing to allow German or British tires into the US?   What if those German or British companies source their tires from China?  

And what about the substantial proportion of people in the United States who are barely making ends meet?  What if they need new tires?  Do you force them to buy expensive domestically produced tires just to protect Eric's job? 

But back to your idea of using trade policy to change the behavior of other countries.   You really want to in effect tax the US citizenry in an effort to change the way the Chinese do things?  It won't work.   It will only hurt the US economy and further impoverish poor people, both here and abroad.

Saying it's a problem and saying we have to find a solution are two different things. Cheaper foreign goods undercutting American goods is a problem in the sense it's a reality that domestic business has to overcome. That's where it has to end, it's up to those markets to overcome not the states role to level the playing field with Tarrifs.

---

First let's all agree there is a problem with American manufacturing vs the global market with lower quality and cheaper wages. It's impossible for many domestic manufactures to offer the same price as foreign competitors but we have to be honest why if we really want to address the problem. American labor laws, regulations, and EPA requirements factor heavily into domestic manufacturing cost. The other factor is taxes, which has been partially addressed with the new tax law, but that's only one of the four real cost driver's. 

Instead of addressing the other three cost driving factors domestically we've elected to take the short cut and imposse selective Tarrifs. Which in turn is simply selective taxation. Instead of addressing our cost driver's we are now arbitrarily increase the cost of other selective goods. This is an end game loss, it undercuts the free markets ability to control supply and demand and sets a precident that the state should decide when a playing field is to unfair and impose selective taxation. 

You want American manufacturing to compete you say but I'll bet most people would oppose what it would really take to compete. It would take eliminating minimum wage, allowing children as young as 14 to work and rolling back regulations on interstate commerce. 

I'd support all three of those as opposed to Tarrifs. Where does it stop now? Why solar and washer machines? This is crony capitalism and any consrvative or libertarian should voice opposition to it.

Hello again, old friend.   Again, I have to disagree with your PREMISE!  

In the main, as it pertains to the best way to enhance and maintain America's competitiveness in the global Markets, I agree with you.  Moreover the PRESIDENT and the CURRENT ADMINISTRAITON agrees with you.  I humbly ask that you please take yes for an answer.  

This past year was probably the single largest cut in the regulatory state since Wilson/Roosevelt took us down the dark path of the ACTIVE STATE.  
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/..._22-1.html

For any 1 new rule proposed by the Executive branch some 20 were eliminated.  And for the first time in our lifetimes we are seeing tangible year to year DECREASES in the size of federal agencies.  

As for labor, the key areas of the Trump Victory were Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.  The first two are already right to work states and the third is trending in that direction.  

It is undeniable that this administrations view of global competitiveness is firmly based in supply side economics, in addition to the massive corporate tax reform that we just passed.  The average corporate tax rate in Europe was 18.5% (places like Ireland as low as 15%) ours was 35% now were dropping to 21%. The largest Tariff on the books was the repatriation tax that has been lowered.  

Massive Deregulation and tax cuts over the entire economy vs. two or three targeted tariffs against Currency Manipulators, Administrative barriers, Subsidized industries, or countries that themselves impose massive Tariffs?

Hey man good to hear from you as well!

I'm not denying the positive changes Trump is making, but I think this one is a mistake and openly oppose it.

You can't use the state to correct economic challenges with out compromising the free markets independence and capitalism is only truly sustainable when it's managed through independent supply and demand.

---

14 year olds back in manufacturing seems like a very good plan.  

I'd actually allow 8 year olds work, makes the workforce so much bigger and gives jobs to more Americans.  Cheaper products and more profit for all!

Idle hands are the Devil's workshop.

The ones who are too weak to work will be eaten and/or used as fuel for the furnaces. Perfect.

---

14 year olds back in manufacturing seems like a very good plan.  

I'd actually allow 8 year olds work, makes the workforce so much bigger and gives jobs to more Americans.  Cheaper products and more profit for all!

Understand I'm not advocating that I'm only pointing out that to compete with cheap labor that would be one of the cost allowing child labor back domestically. 

Personally I don't have a problem with cheap labor overseas creating cheaper imported goods. I think American companies can still compete and the tire example I've used is an area that is proven to be true. 

My point is selectively impossing Tarrifs on hand picked industries is counter productive and undercuts supply side economics.

I hear ya. Just had to get jokes off.

---

14 year olds back in manufacturing seems like a very good plan.  

I'd actually allow 8 year olds work, makes the workforce so much bigger and gives jobs to more Americans.  Cheaper products and more profit for all!

Understand I'm not advocating that I'm only pointing out that to compete with cheap labor that would be one of the cost allowing child labor back domestically. 

Personally I don't have a problem with cheap labor overseas creating cheaper imported goods. I think American companies can still compete and the tire example I've used is an area that is proven to be true. 

My point is selectively impossing Tarrifs on hand picked industries is counter productive and undercuts supply side economics.

---

Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, for instance, are just fine.

---

And yet our primary economic adversary has neither free markets nor free trade, so why grant them free access to our market at the same time they undercut us with immoral busuness behaviors? Cheap stuff at the cost of our moral fabric.

Our moral fabric is conducive to how we conduct ourselves. We can't evaluate the rest of the world's moral fabric and decide to only participate in trade with those select we find acceptable. That would be economicly unsustainable since the concept of morality is subjective and changes with whoever is in power.

Your moral fabric is exposed when you are one half of an immoral or unethical partnership. We're a superpower for crying out loud, no one else can influence the world the way we can. Time to act like it, even if it hurts the old pocketbook just a bit. Hell, if that's the case let's forget about deportation and just convict and enslave the illegal population, why should our kids have to work when we got all these "resources" hanging around. America, your new home for the best sweatshops on Earth!

And I agree about select industries, I'm for economic action on entire countries. This war has been going on for 4 decades now, and we're playing to lose.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Hey man good to hear from you as well!

I'm not denying the positive changes Trump is making, but I think this one is a mistake and openly oppose it.

You can't use the state to correct economic challenges with out compromising the free markets independence and capitalism is only truly sustainable when it's managed through independent supply and demand.

On the whole I agree with you.  In these two cases, we are not talking about truly INDEPENDENT supply and demand.  If it were simply a case that company a. located in South Korea made a washing Machine better faster cheaper or a combination there of then i would be completely opposed to any state action.  And if it were simply a case that their domestic corporate tax rates were much lower than ours or that their regulatory structures were less burdensome then i would say lets just lower the rates and deregulate to have a level playing field.  While we have taken those steps, that's not the case in these two examples.  In reality, the domestic governments (China And south Korea) heavily SUBISDIZE their producers.  That means that in those countries producers of solar cells or washing machines may not have to carry basic costs like paying their own light bill, building their own buildings, investing in infrastructure like roads etc. etc.  In this instance you have FOREIGN STATE intervention that allows products to come to market at a price below our domestic cost of production.  It is in THESE CASES that the state has a role in not allowing foreign companies access to our markets if they have an unfair advantage against our domestic producers.

---

Hey man good to hear from you as well!

I'm not denying the positive changes Trump is making, but I think this one is a mistake and openly oppose it.

You can't use the state to correct economic challenges with out compromising the free markets independence and capitalism is only truly sustainable when it's managed through independent supply and demand.

On the whole I agree with you.  In these two cases, we are not talking about truly INDEPENDENT supply and demand.  If it were simply a case that company a. located in South Korea made a washing Machine better faster cheaper or a combination there of then i would be completely opposed to any state action.  And if it were simply a case that their domestic corporate tax rates were much lower than ours or that their regulatory structures were less burdensome then i would say lets just lower the rates and deregulate to have a level playing field.  While we have taken those steps, that's not the case in these two examples.  In reality, the domestic governments (China And south Korea) heavily SUBISDIZE their producers.  That means that in those countries producers of solar cells or washing machines may not have to carry basic costs like paying their own light bill, building their own buildings, investing in infrastructure like roads etc. etc.  In this instance you have FOREIGN STATE intervention that allows products to come to market at a price below our domestic cost of production.  It is in THESE CASES that the state has a role in not allowing foreign companies access to our markets if they have an unfair advantage against our domestic producers.

Naw man, we can just race to the bottom to compete with them.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

To compete you either need to compete on price or on quality.

American products dont compete on price and never will with china and are also not perceived as high quality or stylish like european products tend to be.

---

Hey man good to hear from you as well!

I'm not denying the positive changes Trump is making, but I think this one is a mistake and openly oppose it.

You can't use the state to correct economic challenges with out compromising the free markets independence and capitalism is only truly sustainable when it's managed through independent supply and demand.

On the whole I agree with you.  In these two cases, we are not talking about truly INDEPENDENT supply and demand.  If it were simply a case that company a. located in South Korea made a washing Machine better faster cheaper or a combination there of then i would be completely opposed to any state action.  And if it were simply a case that their domestic corporate tax rates were much lower than ours or that their regulatory structures were less burdensome then i would say lets just lower the rates and deregulate to have a level playing field.  While we have taken those steps, that's not the case in these two examples.  In reality, the domestic governments (China And south Korea) heavily SUBISDIZE their producers.  That means that in those countries producers of solar cells or washing machines may not have to carry basic costs like paying their own light bill, building their own buildings, investing in infrastructure like roads etc. etc.  In this instance you have FOREIGN STATE intervention that allows products to come to market at a price below our domestic cost of production.  It is in THESE CASES that the state has a role in not allowing foreign companies access to our markets if they have an unfair advantage against our domestic producers.

Again by that argument we need to place tariffs on ALL goods coming from China, they don't just subsidies solar panels and washer machines. That's how you know this is crony capitalism, someone is getting their pocket lined. It's a different conversation if the administration makes the same case you just made and says imported goods from these communist nations are subject to tariffs. That's not what happened and it's not what the administration is proposing at all. They've cherry picked a few markets and said there's an unfair advantage in these specific industries so as the state we are going to level the playing field. That's not free market capitalism.

---

On the whole I agree with you.  In these two cases, we are not talking about truly INDEPENDENT supply and demand.  If it were simply a case that company a. located in South Korea made a washing Machine better faster cheaper or a combination there of then i would be completely opposed to any state action.  And if it were simply a case that their domestic corporate tax rates were much lower than ours or that their regulatory structures were less burdensome then i would say lets just lower the rates and deregulate to have a level playing field.  While we have taken those steps, that's not the case in these two examples.  In reality, the domestic governments (China And south Korea) heavily SUBISDIZE their producers.  That means that in those countries producers of solar cells or washing machines may not have to carry basic costs like paying their own light bill, building their own buildings, investing in infrastructure like roads etc. etc.  In this instance you have FOREIGN STATE intervention that allows products to come to market at a price below our domestic cost of production.  It is in THESE CASES that the state has a role in not allowing foreign companies access to our markets if they have an unfair advantage against our domestic producers.

Naw man, we can just race to the bottom to compete with them.

See the above, you can try and redefine the actions to make it feel more conservative and protectionist but this is crony capitalism on display.

---

To compete you either need to compete on price or on quality.

American products dont compete on price and never will with china and are also not perceived as high quality  or stylish like european products tend to be.

European quality, you joke right? I guess European steel is more stylish than American steel. Oh wait I forgot how great those VW's are.

If there was every a post that come's off as European arrogance and snobbish yours was it congrats mate!

---

On the whole I agree with you.  In these two cases, we are not talking about truly INDEPENDENT supply and demand.  If it were simply a case that company a. located in South Korea made a washing Machine better faster cheaper or a combination there of then i would be completely opposed to any state action.  And if it were simply a case that their domestic corporate tax rates were much lower than ours or that their regulatory structures were less burdensome then i would say lets just lower the rates and deregulate to have a level playing field.  While we have taken those steps, that's not the case in these two examples.  In reality, the domestic governments (China And south Korea) heavily SUBISDIZE their producers.  That means that in those countries producers of solar cells or washing machines may not have to carry basic costs like paying their own light bill, building their own buildings, investing in infrastructure like roads etc. etc.  In this instance you have FOREIGN STATE intervention that allows products to come to market at a price below our domestic cost of production.  It is in THESE CASES that the state has a role in not allowing foreign companies access to our markets if they have an unfair advantage against our domestic producers.

Again by that argument we need to place tariffs on ALL goods coming from China, they don't just subsidies solar panels and washer machines. That's how you know this is crony capitalism, someone is getting their pocket lined. It's a different conversation if the administration makes the same case you just made and says imported goods from these communist nations are subject to tariffs. That's not what happened and it's not what the administration is proposing at all. They've cherry picked a few markets and said there's an unfair advantage in these specific industries so as the state we are going to level the playing field. That's not free market capitalism.

---

Naw man, we can just race to the bottom to compete with them.

See the above, you can try and redefine the actions to make it feel more conservative and protectionist but this is crony capitalism on display.

---

To compete you either need to compete on price or on quality.

American products dont compete on price and never will with china and are also not perceived as high quality  or stylish like european products tend to be.

European quality, you joke right? I guess European steel is more stylish than American steel. Oh wait I forgot how great those VW's are.

If there was every a post that come's off as European arrogance and snobbish yours was it congrats mate!

you're absolutely right, it's not free market capitalism.  That is the challenge when operating with International free trade.  You can expose your domestic Markets to products that have been made artificially cheap by unfair, dishonest or underhanded practices of a foreign state.  

As for targeted Tariffs: Currency Manipulation, Administrative barriers, Subsidies, Tariffs etc. on behalf of the importing country can cause an unfair advantage.  In some cases this can cut into the profit margin of our domestic producers, in some cases that can create an environment where the simple production COST of the domestic producer is greater than the retail price of the imported Goods.  That's the case for these specific trade actions.  If you dispute the effect of foreign subsidies on these particular sectors then that would be grounds for criticism, but viewing any state action out of hand as impure is an idealogical argument not a factual one.

---

Again by that argument we need to place tariffs on ALL goods coming from China, they don't just subsidies solar panels and washer machines. That's how you know this is crony capitalism, someone is getting their pocket lined. It's a different conversation if the administration makes the same case you just made and says imported goods from these communist nations are subject to tariffs. That's not what happened and it's not what the administration is proposing at all. They've cherry picked a few markets and said there's an unfair advantage in these specific industries so as the state we are going to level the playing field. That's not free market capitalism.

---

See the above, you can try and redefine the actions to make it feel more conservative and protectionist but this is crony capitalism on display.

---

European quality, you joke right? I guess European steel is more stylish than American steel. Oh wait I forgot how great those VW's are.

If there was every a post that come's off as European arrogance and snobbish yours was it congrats mate!

you're absolutely right, it's not free market capitalism.  That is the challenge when operating with International free trade.  You can expose your domestic Markets to products that have been made artificially cheap by unfair, dishonest or underhanded practices of a foreign state.  

As for targeted Tariffs: Currency Manipulation, Administrative barriers, Subsidies, Tariffs etc. on behalf of the importing country can cause an unfair advantage.  In some cases this can cut into the profit margin of our domestic producers, in some cases that can create an environment where the simple production COST of the domestic producer is greater than the retail price of the imported Goods.  That's the case for these specific trade actions.  If you dispute the effect of foreign subsidies on these particular sectors then that would be grounds for criticism, but viewing any state action out of hand as impure is an idealogical argument not a factual one.

I'm still baffled by the idea that somehow it would be better, for me or for the economy as a whole, if things cost more. 

You can call it whatever you want- currency manipulation, subsidies, whatever.  I call it a discount.  I don't see how that's a bad thing.  Why should I want imported goods to cost more?   If I pay less for certain things, I have more money left over to buy other things.   What's the problem?

---

you're absolutely right, it's not free market capitalism.  That is the challenge when operating with International free trade.  You can expose your domestic Markets to products that have been made artificially cheap by unfair, dishonest or underhanded practices of a foreign state.  

As for targeted Tariffs: Currency Manipulation, Administrative barriers, Subsidies, Tariffs etc. on behalf of the importing country can cause an unfair advantage.  In some cases this can cut into the profit margin of our domestic producers, in some cases that can create an environment where the simple production COST of the domestic producer is greater than the retail price of the imported Goods.  That's the case for these specific trade actions.  If you dispute the effect of foreign subsidies on these particular sectors then that would be grounds for criticism, but viewing any state action out of hand as impure is an idealogical argument not a factual one.

I'm still baffled by the idea that somehow it would be better, for me or for the economy as a whole, if things cost more. 

You can call it whatever you want- currency manipulation, subsidies, whatever.  I call it a discount.  I don't see how that's a bad thing.  Why should I want imported goods to cost more?   If I pay less for certain things, I have more money left over to buy other things.   What's the problem?

Sure, as I said, you can race to the bottom by aligning your self with immoral actors. That's your call. I would not permit it, especially when it's at the expense of domestic producers that we hold to higher standards of behavior. You might as well argue that it's ok for you to buy a kidney ripped from a Chinese dissident political prisoner on the open market. Your participation reveals your ethics or lack thereof.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Its not just a question of morality but of economics. Where does this "money" come from Marty. It comes from offering a good or service that people want like or need at a price they're willing to pay for it. If foreign actors staked with high subsidies undercut your production costs then u won't have any money to start with.

---

So a bunch of companies are going to start manufacturing their solar panels in the US because of the 30% Tariff.

Is that bad?

---

So a bunch of companies are going to start manufacturing their solar panels in the US because of the 30% Tariff.

Is that bad?

Well, if the cost of the solar panels goes up then that could be considered a bad thing for the customers buying them. I understand that point. But it's also a trade off that is about more than just the price, IMO.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Its not just a question of morality but of economics.  Where does this "money" come from Marty.  It comes from offering a good or service that people want like or need at a price they're willing to pay for it.  If foreign actors staked with high subsidies undercut your production costs then u won't have any money to start with.

That doesn't make any sense.  The money I save on imports goes to other enterprises here in the United States.  If you force me to pay more for stuff, all those other businesses will suffer because I will have less money left over to spend on other things.

---

Where did the money IN YOUR POCKET come from to start with?

---

Where did the money IN YOUR POCKET come from to start with?

Are you asking me how the economy works?  

Rather than me typing some attempted humor or sarcasm, how about you clarify why you are asking such a question, so I can respond in an appropriate way. 

The money in my various "pockets" came from me and another guy starting an information technology company back in the early 90s and developing it into a successful business.   That's where my money comes from.  Now, if you're asking, where did the money in my pocket originate, I guess we could go all the way back to the days of cave men and the origination of money. 

I guess I'm not sure what you're asking, so perhaps you could clarify.

---