This is in no way supposed to be argumentative or flaming or w/e, I dont want any of that. I just want to ask a simple question and want to get an answer that justifies my question.

Republicans have always built themselves upon the Laissez-Faire attitude of keeping the government out of business. They believe 100% in free-market capitalism and very little to no regulation. So here is my question. Why are today's Republicans trying to limit the flow of outsourcing to countries like China and India through tariffs and political actions? Obviously this is free market-capitalism at its highest.

So please someone just answer it with no arguing/flaming. Thank you.

This isn't my homework. Don't be such a douche when I didn't even say anything inflammatory. It was just a simple question about politics and business.

way to act like your opinions are facts

who is that directed at? me?

Republicans=Nazis

Just a small amount of the reason.... All products are made outside of the US and brought back to sell to a bunch of jobless Americans?? The economy would suck even worse than it does now... it's scary to hear economist and politicians talk about an North American Union... boarders would be more open than they are now and every one of US and Canada's leading manufactors would head to cheap land/cheap labor in Mexico. Where would that put of all?

This is directed towards XBass: So our GDP would be hurt and our unemployment would be higher. But what about the corporations that are benefiting tremendously? Republicans, historically, have been in favor of big business and corporations. So why shouldn't these corporations be allowed to maximize profits?

Are the political actions in our government today a reaction to slow down or possibly even halter globalization? It seems like our government (both Republicans and Democrats alike) are unwilling to let our economy be more dependent on the rest of the world when there is so much out there: resources, capital, potential. But the rest of the world is changing towards a global economy so why is the government trying to limit its exposure internationally? Is it feasable that we might get left behind the rest of the world 50 years from now?

CAn I chime in here?

Corporatons arent going to benifit from cheaper fixed costs if it meant an uptick in unemployment. Higher unemployment (from increased outourcing) would lead to less consumer confidence, less expendible income, a weaker dollar, all resulting in less revenue effecting the net in a negative way.

Remeber Econ 101. U have a basket of goods....the invisible hand...bread and bombs....

thi is all very basic econ/buss 100 level stuff here.

Second question.

Globalization and oursourcing are two differant things so I think u have ur definitions/facts mixed up. And any government that trades with any other foreign entity will become depnedent on the rest of the world. (GNP GDP). If we trade 80 mil in oragnes +20 mill in cash for 100 mil in coffee. we need to make that 20 mill up somewhere.

again bussiness 100 level.

wlamart is not a mufacuturer so tht doesnt really apply. walamart has cheaper products because of a good inventory system that scans at the register and nofitys a database when products are low, when some are not selling and when to purchase more. Walmart is also a huge national retailer that buys in bulk to keep the RETAIL PRICE LOW.

wtf is the op babbling about? anyone?

Not really sure...I just wanted to spout off the first thing that came to mind after I read the title.

I agree somewhat. But Walmart acts as a manufacturer by setting it;s own lower prices. Buying from a cheaper sources overseas manufacturer such as lets say SONY (just for the argument) SONY has a large involvement in the US as well but the demand for lower prices and the power of Walmart is pushing them to outsource to other countries so that they may buy for way less and come back to US and still make a profit.

"Wal-Martdictates, through its demand for low prices, that its suppliersoutsource their production to foreign nations, further ripping downAmerica's battered domestic manufacturing and agricultural capability,in a self-feeding process."

source: http://www.larouchepub.com/other/200...mart_iowa.html

Buying in bulk has little to do with it.

I agree with you El Burro... you sound like Ron Paul right there.... and yes I am actually looking to vote for him just because he is more of what republicans where ONCE than they are today. I heard on a talk radio while driving out of town last week that there is 10 cameras for every one American. It's hard to believe but shows how freedom is now screwed. Ron Paul believes in less gov and actually get rid of useless government funded crap that exsist today. At least that is what he claims... actually doing it is another thing. I have heard the same song before.

What's really going to hurt us is the fact that our country is dominated increasingly by service sector jobs. Technology, engineering, and many technical jobs are going by the wayside. Not as many people within the United States are majoring in computer sciences and other technical related fields because of their concern for finding employment. Many of these jobs within the United States are occupied by foreigners. Now companies are going overseas to pay cheaper wages for the same employees. Room for growth overseas is keeping people who would normally come to the United States to look for employment in India and China etc. IMO, this kind of trend will play a large part in our ability to compete on an international level in the future. I don't think service sector jobs will carry the weight.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...-science_x.htm
http://chronicle.com/subscribe/login...007032002n.htm

Also, the argument about Democrats putting $5.85 minimum wage jobs on American workers to me is a little off base. I don't know many people in America who would work for $5.85 or settle for that. I don't see the wages as a question of being fair, I see it more as two countries who are in two different stages of growth.

OK guys, I have a few things I'd like to add to this discussion and I'll do it in a series of points.

Point 1:
The OP may have exaggerated saying that the Republican party espouses some sort of 100% hardcore free market zealotry. That's far from the case, as no one in politics can hold that position and get elected. But Republicans are, undisputably, the party of economic growth right now. The Dems continually speak on how they're going to reform and expand healthcare using the government, they continually speak ill of the Bush tax cuts (regardless of who benefited from the cuts, we can all agree I hope that lower taxes are better than higher taxes), and some dem candidates have argued for expanding entitlement programs, which would all be financed through taxes and administered by the government. Now, I don't know about you guys, but I have little confidence in the government's ability to run anything efficiently. Although the Republicans suck in other areas (ie. wars) they are much more pro-business and pro-growth than any of the current democratic candidates.

Point 2:
Anyone saying that our participation in further globalization could lead to increases in unemployment or lower GDP numbers is severly confused. What a lot of people are not realizing is that our economy is currently undergoing a large transformation. The loss of manufacturing jobs to other nations is a great example of a byproduct of this change, and some would consider this an indicator of us becoming less prosperous. The proponents of that view typically cite the lack of good paying jobs for our workers for instance. I say they couldnt be any more wrong. In the short-run unemployment is obviously going to increase, but our economy in the information age is incredibly flexible, with extremely flexible labor markets. We're in the midst of a global boom, but it's also, I think, something akin to the agricultural revolution that occured during the second half of the 19th century. During the period of the agricultural revoluton, farm productivity grew at a substantial rate, and has continued to grow to the point where today 2% of the population grows enough to feed the other 98%!!!! 2 people can grow enough to feed 98 others!

Now, this productivity advance is precisely what is happening to manufacturing. With the advent of the globalized, interactive, and integrated world, we have seen vast productivity gains. There are two things happening in the manufacturing industry; 1. The jobs that were in America are going to other nations with lower labor costs and 2. The amount of people needed to produce the things we use is falling, and will continue to fall as we all become more efficient as a society. Society as a whole will prosper beyond belief, but some groups within the society will not see these benefits. Those that are not investing in their education and who have typically no more than a basic high school education (standard manufacturing workers) will lose in this economy. Essentially manual labor has been crowded out by machines that do not need to rest, eat, or sleep.

We are, and will continue to be, wealthier as people if we continue to undergo this transition. Just look at all the stuff we have that we didn't 10 or 15 years ago. I have any Ipod that can hold 30gigs of music, but 10 years ago I had a sweet walkman that could only play 1 cd at a time. We have Tivos. We have instantaneous connectivity through our phones and computers to anyone on the planet. People can by $20 dvd players at stores, 10 years ago everyone used a VCR. And there are countless other examples. That is economic growth.

Listen to this interview and you'll realize what I mean.
<SPAN class=title>
Brian Wesbury Says Housing Effects `Highly Contained' </SPAN>
<SPAN class=summary>Nov. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Brian Wesbury, chief economist at First Trust Advisors LP, spoke on Nov. 2 with Bloomberg's Tom Keene from Chicago about the U.S. jobs report for October, the outlook for economic growth in the fourth quarter, Federal Reserve monetary policy and inflation risk, and the impact of the housing market on the economy. (Source: Bloomberg)
</SPAN>Listen Now/ Download