One may believe firmly in national identity and strength and not be called a protectionist. Yet, protecting that which is vulnerable must have an appropriate name.

If foreigners never cashed in those dollars... is a meaningless statement. A deficit is not simply that Greenbacks are flowing outward. It more aptly means that more Greenbacks are going out than we are balancing with sales of American goods and labor. In that sense, we Americans are spending more than we are earning.

Let me state clearly that debt greater than current assets is not investment! Talk of surpluses and deficits and economic theory is meaningless chatter. Rather it is akin to a developer borrowing money to build more houses after mortgage money dried up and the housing market tanked.

Foreigners have been investing in the United States for decades is true. But now major corporations are going hat-in-hand seeking bailouts. CitiBank selling 11% of its worth after record losses does not spell boom times!

[The] US government has been selling to foreigners to finance the growing federal budget deficit. Think about this in terms of (1) spending like drunken sailors on shore leave, and (2) borrowing against your next two year's paycheck to cover the bar tab. Sooner rather than later the bartender will realize your credit worthiness is a bit weak.

American citizens are living on credit. The nation is living on credit. Some real and some potential political and ideological adversaries are holding the paper. We can always expect a game of three dimensional chess with money - or global power and position - on the table. Are we prepared to play a leadership role or simply follow.

Pure capitalism knows no national boundaries and serves no national interest. Business flows wherever the money is available. In this sense pure capitalists are no more than mercenaries.

So long as businesses or citizens enjoy the benefits this nation offers, yet has no obligation to its survival, there is an illness that bleeds life from the host. Take all you can reach, then bargain for more. But never consider the environment, government or qualities of nationalism that allowed your success.

Look to Europe, which is disintegrating socially and economically. Look to China as the emerging economic power. Look closely for a workable environment that can replace the wealth and strength America once provided.

If there is no will to protect and defend America's national interests including its economic infrastructure, then it is time to burn our history books and bow to new powers.

Take all you can reach, then bargain for more. But never consider the environment, government or qualities of nationalism that allowed your success.

Nationalism has caused much of the problem simply because nationalism evolved into protectionism, which has led to things like high tariffs and farm subsidies that wind up artificially inflating prices and hurting they very same people that these regulations are intended to "help."

It's no better than the policies like the minimum wage.

Pure capitalism knows no national boundaries and serves no national interest. Business flows wherever the money is available.

The point of business is to make money and expand. Individuals have a moral right to trade and sell their property in whatever fashion the wish.

The point of business is to make money and expand. Individuals have a moral right to trade and sell their property in whatever fashion the wish.

And when those businesses or individuals act in a manner contrary to American national interests they no longer have a right to access the benefits and privileges this nation has provided to them. Biting the hand that feeds you deserves being bitten in return!

It is correct that subsidies are self defeating. But we are discussing international engagements. Tariffs should be used only to benefit US economic infrastructure - not a tool for political or social engineering. There is a huge difference between Fair Trade and Open Trade.

Whatever moral rights exist do not magically appear. The property or goods for sale or trade came to the 'owner' in part because of the environment fostered by this government. That is why US businesses operate autonomously, but must work through foreign governments to penetrate markets.

And when those businesses or individuals act in a manner contrary to American national interests they no longer have a right to access the benefits and privileges this nation has provided to them. Biting the hand that feeds you deserves being bitten in return!

I don't recall seeing that in our Constitution.

The only responsibility these individuals have is to their shareholders.

Whatever moral rights exist do not magically appear. The property or goods for sale or trade came to the 'owner' in part because of the environment fostered by this government.

I would guess that you don't subscribe to the concept of natural rights then, or even the concept of liberty for that matter.

Government has created an atmosphere that has caused business to leave the country due to over-regulation and high corporate taxation.

There is a huge difference between Fair Trade and Open Trade.

You're right, Larry. "Fair trade," a populist term that attempts to hide protectionism, hurts consumers.

Larry, I respect you. You are a good friend, but I want you to sit back and think about what your a saying. You have basically said that you support economic fascism.

You have basically said that you support economic fascism.

No, that is not it. I support freedom and liberty AND the framework that allows them to exist.

Government has created an atmosphere that has caused business to leave the country. This may be true, and the choice must be made. So this is a problem to address. What I would say is that "business" may operate without national boundaries or loyalties or obligations, but in doing so they choose to forego the protections, benefits and privileges found only in this country.

Think in more simple terms: You use your brother's land to produce a crop for sale. It is, by agreement, your crop. Would you then fail to respect and protect that land for (1) your brother's use, or (2) your own future use?

There are a couple problems with your reasoning. One is that the market will police itself. If consumers are concerned that a particular company is not producing many American goods, then the market would correct that.

No, that is not it. I support freedom and liberty AND the framework that allows them to exist.
I don’t believe you. I think you pay it lip service but I don’t believe that you understand what the words mean.

The framework is the market. Let the consumers decide.

Government intervention to promote American made products hurts the economy because it artificially drives up prices. Any tariffs or corporate taxation are just passed along to the consumer in the cost of the good or service.

The framework is the market.

You are so correct. That is why Boston harbor was once filled with English tea. The Market has been the underlying force behind wars and rumors of wars. But answer this: without the country, its wealth and military how would the Marshall Plan or Iraq's rebuilding every happen? How would these autonomous businesses profit without the country's (citizens & institutions) dedication to survival and well being?

I think you pay it lip service but I don’t believe that you understand what the words mean.

Actually I just did not wnat to tell you my belief that Locke was an anarchist. Which explains why both the Americans and French 'disowned' him after the revolutions. Man has Rights, to be sure. But the individual cannot supercede governmental architecture which exists to permit benefits and privileges.

Theory is a wonderful thing until the mundane laws of human nature take over. If there were no country, nothing to live or die for, then where did all these big businesses ever get the notion they were "free?"

Businesses may exist as legal entities, but they are owned and managed by people. The social and political contract those people must recognize resides outside the search for profits or shareholder equity.

To the extent the Market is a living entity providing self policing and self correction, why then is the US or the US monetary system needed at all? Could it be that self indulgent capitalists have their haven here, and it would not be allowed elsewhere?

On that premise, I submit that US businesses, their owners and managers owe obligations to protect the very system that allows their search for autonomy.

Neither people nor businesses may destroy the source of their sustenance. Therefore, they are obliged to protect it. Hence, protectionism is but a road along the path to self preservation.

But the individual cannot supercede governmental architecture which exists to permit benefits and privileges.

Once government creates barriers that stifle his ability to achieve success and liberty, then the contract between the individual and the government body, which only has a right to govern by the consent of the individual, is null and void.

Could it be that self indulgent capitalists have their haven here, and it would not be allowed elsewhere?

Given the recent rankings of world economies, I wouldn't call the US a haven.

Neither people nor businesses may destroy the source of their sustenance. Therefore, they are obliged to protect it. Hence, protectionism is but a road along the path to self preservation.

Businesses have no responsibility or obligation to anyone but their shareholders.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, protectionism may have good intentions but it only causes problems for consumers and stifles prosperity.