Yes, but none of those countries are going to do that because they're the ones who benefit from our richer economy investing in them in the first place, so what's the point of that question?
Fuck your global free market. Yes I'm asking for more government, just like I'm asking for more government when I say I want our borders enforced and every illegal alien booted from the country.
The benefit of preventing communist faggots from buying up our economy is that we keep our economy out the hands of communist faggots. Not allowing the whole world to mooch off us also means us not being fused with economies we have far less control over. You don't want to "depend on one economy" but you also don't want countries to have actual, independent economies?
OK so with that logic, should the government also ban Americans from buying foreign products? No more Ferraris, tequila, etc.
In Economics 101 they teach the concept of "competitive advantage". Simply put, some countries are better at some things than others. To say that America is #1 is one thing. To say America is #1 in everything so we should ban business with other countries is going too far. Whether you realize it or not, you would hurt the people you're trying to help, much like the minimum wage.
"Government is not the solution to our problems, government IS the problem." - P. Ronald Reagan
"With that logic", then asks a question that doesn't logically connect in the slightest. I'd be cool with banning tequila until Mexico stops being a shithole, though.
I love how far you're moving the goalposts to take the heat off the globalist bullshit you were originally defending.
"Why should we stop malicious Chinese commies from buying up our industries?"
"Why would you want China to stop welcoming our investments in their country and siphoning even more wealth from our economy?"
"Why should we ban business with other countries?"
Yes, by the way, it IS better that we prefer our own industry in all possible areas, even above countries that are more efficient, rather than staying mediocre and leaning on those other countries in perpetuity. The comparative advantage, which I'm guessing you meant, should be exploited when it serves as a means to further increasing American autonomy. I don't give a shit about your international corporation's profits. And no, I don't give a shit about Trump's either. I care about what he does for America.
Reagan was an impotent limp-wrist who gave California back to Mexico. I'll stick with the people who created our country.
You are confusing two terms. Global government =/= free markets. Your idea is simply impossible to implement without hurting Americans.
Just to name 1 of thousands of points I could make. Lets say an American couple is expatriated to an of shore oil project in Singapore temporarily. They buy a house while they are there and have a baby. The baby is American and also Singapore citizen. You can see why this family wants to own a house is both countries, right?
On the other side of the coin, lets say that Space Force wants to recruit a genius physicist that just developed a new theory about missile acceleration. You think he would move to the US if he couldnt own property? The US would just be putting a limit on themselves.
The free market knows better and more freedom usually benefits all.
Now look at how your points contradict each other:
If China buys stuff here, the communists are taking over.
If Americans buy in China, we are letting them "siphone" our wealth...
So wouldnt that mean when China buys here, we are siphoning their wealth?
Im just a bit disappointed to see a fellow pede demand government actions instead of free market.
I'm not confusing any terms. You want a global free market. I don't.
My idea hurts Americans the same way training for a marathon hurts your legs.
Lets say an American couple is expatriated to an of shore oil project in Singapore temporarily. They buy a house while they are there and have a baby. The baby is American and also Singapore citizen. You can see why this family wants to own a house is both countries, right?
This "American" couple divided their loyalties and should pick one country or the other.
On the other side of the coin, lets say that Space Force wants to recruit a genius physicist that just developed a new theory about missile acceleration. You think he would move to the US if he couldnt own property? The US would just be putting a limit on themselves.
If this person is from a friendly country he doesn't need to move here for us to work with him. If he really wanted to he could become a US citizen, renouncing all allegiance to all other countries, like new citizens are fuckin supposed to in the first place. If he's from an unfriendly country he's not going to move here unless he's an infiltrator in which case we don't want him, or he's a defector in which case he should be fine with renouncing his allegiances. There is no scenario where the dual-nation option you want benefits us more.
So wouldnt that mean when China buys here, we are siphoning their wealth?
No, because China is still a primitive communist shithole and America is the wealthiest country on the planet. China also isn't exporting their industries here, they're mainly hijacking ours to run in tandem with their own. Whatever superficial gains Chinese investments bring are far outweighed by the costs and lost opportunity from having belligerent communists injecting themselves into our economy and society at the expense of Americans. If that weren't the case, they wouldn't be doing it.
Im just a bit disappointed to see a fellow pede demand government actions instead of free market.
I'm guessing this stems from the mistaken belief that libertarianism is patriotism.
The only thing the free market knows is how to most efficiently create short-term profit. That's desirable in certain areas, but outright harmful in others. It doesn't give a shit about the long-term concerns or cultural and political interests of a nation.
Yes, but none of those countries are going to do that because they're the ones who benefit from our richer economy investing in them in the first place, so what's the point of that question?
Fuck your global free market. Yes I'm asking for more government, just like I'm asking for more government when I say I want our borders enforced and every illegal alien booted from the country.
The benefit of preventing communist faggots from buying up our economy is that we keep our economy out the hands of communist faggots. Not allowing the whole world to mooch off us also means us not being fused with economies we have far less control over. You don't want to "depend on one economy" but you also don't want countries to have actual, independent economies?
OK so with that logic, should the government also ban Americans from buying foreign products? No more Ferraris, tequila, etc.
In Economics 101 they teach the concept of "competitive advantage". Simply put, some countries are better at some things than others. To say that America is #1 is one thing. To say America is #1 in everything so we should ban business with other countries is going too far. Whether you realize it or not, you would hurt the people you're trying to help, much like the minimum wage.
"Government is not the solution to our problems, government IS the problem." - P. Ronald Reagan
"With that logic", then asks a question that doesn't logically connect in the slightest. I'd be cool with banning tequila until Mexico stops being a shithole, though.
I love how far you're moving the goalposts to take the heat off the globalist bullshit you were originally defending.
"Why should we stop malicious Chinese commies from buying up our industries?"
"Why would you want China to stop welcoming our investments in their country and siphoning even more wealth from our economy?"
"Why should we ban business with other countries?"
Yes, by the way, it IS better that we prefer our own industry in all possible areas, even above countries that are more efficient, rather than staying mediocre and leaning on those other countries in perpetuity. The comparative advantage, which I'm guessing you meant, should be exploited when it serves as a means to further increasing American autonomy. I don't give a shit about your international corporation's profits. And no, I don't give a shit about Trump's either. I care about what he does for America.
Reagan was an impotent limp-wrist who gave California back to Mexico. I'll stick with the people who created our country.
You are confusing two terms. Global government =/= free markets. Your idea is simply impossible to implement without hurting Americans.
Just to name 1 of thousands of points I could make. Lets say an American couple is expatriated to an of shore oil project in Singapore temporarily. They buy a house while they are there and have a baby. The baby is American and also Singapore citizen. You can see why this family wants to own a house is both countries, right?
On the other side of the coin, lets say that Space Force wants to recruit a genius physicist that just developed a new theory about missile acceleration. You think he would move to the US if he couldnt own property? The US would just be putting a limit on themselves.
The free market knows better and more freedom usually benefits all.
Now look at how your points contradict each other:
If China buys stuff here, the communists are taking over.
If Americans buy in China, we are letting them "siphone" our wealth...
So wouldnt that mean when China buys here, we are siphoning their wealth?
Im just a bit disappointed to see a fellow pede demand government actions instead of free market.
I'm not confusing any terms. You want a global free market. I don't.
My idea hurts Americans the same way training for a marathon hurts your legs.
This "American" couple divided their loyalties and should pick one country or the other.
If this person is from a friendly country he doesn't need to move here for us to work with him. If he really wanted to he could become a US citizen, renouncing all allegiance to all other countries, like new citizens are fuckin supposed to in the first place. If he's from an unfriendly country he's not going to move here unless he's an infiltrator in which case we don't want him, or he's a defector in which case he should be fine with renouncing his allegiances. There is no scenario where the dual-nation option you want benefits us more.
No, because China is still a primitive communist shithole and America is the wealthiest country on the planet. China also isn't exporting their industries here, they're mainly hijacking ours to run in tandem with their own. Whatever superficial gains Chinese investments bring are far outweighed by the costs and lost opportunity from having belligerent communists injecting themselves into our economy and society at the expense of Americans. If that weren't the case, they wouldn't be doing it.
I'm guessing this stems from the mistaken belief that libertarianism is patriotism.
The only thing the free market knows is how to most efficiently create short-term profit. That's desirable in certain areas, but outright harmful in others. It doesn't give a shit about the long-term concerns or cultural and political interests of a nation.