TheBlack_knight

Those look good just glancing over them. To move beyond simple comparative advantage (if you're interested) I would recommend looking into the Heckscher-Ohlin theorem as well. It expands upon comparative advantage adding another level of complexity and more insight. Empirically the theorem has been mostly proven, something that not all economic theories are able to pass.

The Wikipedia page looks like a good overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckscher%E2%80%93Ohlin_model

Most insights into the benefits of trade can be seen in the Ricadrian comparative advantage model (see post above).

Economic expansion is not a zero sum game. If China and India are training future engineers and scientist then great for them. We can hope to learn from them in the future and use there ideas in our own way. The article says something to the tune of: Indian companies taking knowledge from U.S. outsourcers and using that knowledge to start domestic firms. If Cina and India become leaders in the future for innovation the USA and the rest of the world will benefit in the same way.

This question has been answered several hundred years ago by David Ricardo, but others as well. This is not some crazy economic theory that is debatable today, its taken as fact by almost all economists. Economics makes takes no notice of national boundaries, they have no meaning.

I would encourage everyone to learn about some basic international economic theory, trade theory specifically. Knowledge shows that this article is total BS.

Xenophobia will not take us to the land of milk and honey.

That's a relavent point. High marginal tax rates would create the incentive for people in the higher taxed brakets to seek non-pecuniary benefits. Things like company cars and free jets. This would suggets we have an incomplete picture form this article.

The workers who designed and built the machines are skilled. Inefficient jobs are replaced with with new jobs not necessarily in the same industry.

Manufacturing is not necessarily low skilled. Look to Germany for example, which is a heavy manufacture that uses very advanced factories, some even completely automated.

I have no problem having China make goods for us. Manufacturing is usually a dirty process and the jobs can be relatively low paying.

The problem is not a BOP deficit, the problem is how we are financing the import of cheap goods from China, and that is in fact cheap money from China. We are currently caught in a sort of circular flow of cheap trade with China and even cheaper money to finance this.

We can guarantee that we stay on top of the vertical stack by continuing to innovate by designing and commercializing new products. This is what Joseph A. Schumpeter called creative destruction.

How can we stay ahead of other countries in this endeavor? I do not know. Economic theory tells us that national boarders and countries have no significance in economic growth. If we have open countries that allow trade and the movement of capital all countries and people should benefit from new innovation regardless of whether it is made in the USA or in Pakistan. This question was answered nearly 200 years ago by David Ricardo and others.

Obviously countries are not completely open to trade, however the trend is toward higher levels of international openness. One need only look at the succes of Singapore. Others will follow slowly.

The us vs. them mentality will not get us to the land of milk and honey.

I think you missed the second page of pics.

I resist the comparisons between accent Rome and our current culture, but sometimes the insights are intuitive.

… Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses

Once a society becomes advanced many comforts become available, it seems to happen that we forgot just how it is we got there. There is an economic theory that goes something like, every generation or two needs a great war so that those who survive come back home with a sense of purpose. And those individuals work to advance society. The next generation perhaps becomes more immersed in the culture and uninterested in advancing knowledge or economic gains. Stagnation sets in again.