The computer components on which I write this post were made in: India, China, Japan and Malaysia. My Microsoft keyboard was made in China. My monitor was made in China. The Cisco router that connects my network to the Internet was made in the Philippines. The wires that connect my Router to my cable modem were made in Hong Kong, where incidentally, my my cable modem was also made. It's cold today, so I wore a nice cotton Jos. A. Banks turtle neck made in Jordan. My Kenneth Cole Shoes were made in Italy. My Banana Republic slacks were made in Mexico. My belt, in Ecuador. My socks, in Belize. My Prada sunglasses, in Italy.Drove to the train station in my Mercedes S55 made in Germany (not the Germans fault that Americans can't make cars - they get a pass), gas from Saudi Arabia (or Iran, Venezuela, Iraq, etc.) and rode in a shiny double decker train car made in Japan.Fine.Now it comes time to buy a tanker to refuel the most powerful military in the world...and we want to do this in an European made Airbus? REALLY? Well heck, why not...the AMERICAN FLAGS flying over our American bases all over the world are made in China anyway. Why not replace that aging silly Boeing Air Force One thingy with a nice shiny new A380 and make the Queen of England the official leader of the United States too.Unemployment in the United States is at 10 PERCENT....why are we evening HAVING this conversation!!!!

And what sort of company would Boeing be today if other countries has adopted that policy and Boeing had been restricted to selling only in the US?The answer is that Boeing's Commercial aircraft Division delivered 309 aircraft this year through August 2009. Of those only 108 (35%) went to US airlines and companies - the rest were bought by overseas airlines.

And what sort of company would Boeing be today if other countries has adopted that policy and Boeing had been restricted to selling only in the US?The answer is that Boeing's Commercial aircraft Division delivered 309 aircraft this year through August 2009. Of those only 108 (35%) went to US airlines and companies - the rest were bought by overseas airlines.

And how many of those 201 airliners that went overseas were critical to that country's national defense?

And what sort of company would Boeing be today if other countries has adopted that policy and Boeing had been restricted to selling only in the US?The answer is that Boeing's Commercial aircraft Division delivered 309 aircraft this year through August 2009. Of those only 108 (35%) went to US airlines and companies - the rest were bought by overseas airlines.

Then again all the Airbus US Airline sales would have gone to Boeing drastically increasing that number.

And how many of those 201 airliners that went overseas were critical to that country's national defense?

You miss the point. I'm arguing against the protectionism shown in the post I was replying to. The stategic issue is different.

Then again all the Airbus US Airline sales would have gone to Boeing drastically increasing that number.

Boeing estimates that the US market is only 26% of the global market in dollar terms. I'm sure it wouldn't want to be excluded from the remaining 74%!

You miss the point. I'm arguing against the protectionism shown in the post I was replying to. The stategic issue is different.

Sir, YOU miss the point. Please tell me which protectionism do you wish to argue against? The protectionism that caused the $500 Billion dollar US trade deficit? Or maybe the protectionism that plays a large part in the 10% US unemployment rate? Tell me which figure doesn't suit you. Should we raise our trade deficit by a few billion? Maybe not enough American's are out of work maybe we can get that figure up a few notches for you? Maybe we are not borrowing enough money from China? Please, let us know how we can help. So, please, don't lecture us about "protectionism" because if you understood the fact that America imports half a trillion dollars more than it exports then you would not let that word depart your lips in public.

You miss the point. I'm arguing against the protectionism shown in the post I was replying to. The stategic issue is different.

So what? Protectionism is completely moot here. It is only a point of debate for those who do not realize or don't care that the primary issue here is whether or not to make a foreign military procurement and the importance of that system to national defense. You miss the forest for the trees when you argue for or against protectionism. How many other cliches can I use, maybe cart before the horse? It is pointless to make any arguments for or against industrial protectionism when the bigger issue is whether or not such a military system should or should not be purchased from a foreign source in the first place. Resolve that issue first before you debate industrial protectionism.

Sir, YOU miss the point. Please tell me which protectionism do you wish to argue against? The protectionism that caused the $500 Billion dollar US trade deficit? Or maybe the protectionism that plays a large part in the 10% US unemployment rate? Tell me which figure doesn't suit you. Should we raise our trade deficit by a few billion? Maybe not enough American's are out of work maybe we can get that figure up a few notches for you? Maybe we are not borrowing enough money from China? Please, let us know how we can help. So, please, don't lecture us about "protectionism" because if you understood the fact that America imports half a trillion dollars more than it exports then you would not let that word depart your lips in public.

Fine so let's have protectionism and restrict Boeing to about 25% of the world market, with similar restrictions on other US exporters. How many layoffs would that cause? You could make your contribution to treducing the trade deficit by buying US-made computer components, keyboards, monitors, routers, wires cable modems, turtle necks shoes, belt, socks, sunglasses, cars, fuel, and not riding on foreign-made trains.

the primary issue here is whether or not to make a foreign military procurement and the importance of that system to national defense.

As I said national security is a valid point. Discussing that isn't helped by confusing it with arguments about safety and trade deficits. That only gives the impression that the national security point is weak.

As I said national security is a valid point.

Where?

I am with Kevin in this discussion. Lets French buy our C-130J (or at least give it a chance of honest competition with the A400M) and then we can consider their A330 for the tanker. Clearly as far as military procurement goes protectionism is practiced around the world.

Where?

You miss the point. I'm arguing against the protectionism shown in the post I was replying to. The stategic issue is different.

In reply to your post #48. I thought my reference to "strategic issues" covered the national security point - I intended it to.

Sir, YOU miss the point. Please tell me which protectionism do you wish to argue against? The protectionism that caused the $500 Billion dollar US trade deficit? Or maybe the protectionism that plays a large part in the 10% US unemployment rate? Tell me which figure doesn't suit you. Should we raise our trade deficit by a few billion? Maybe not enough American's are out of work maybe we can get that figure up a few notches for you? Maybe we are not borrowing enough money from China? Please, let us know how we can help.

I don't think the change in unemployment from 4% to 10% is because of some sudden change in protectionism. In fact I think imports are way off.scott s..

I don't think the change in unemployment from 4% to 10% is because of some sudden change in protectionism. In fact I think imports are way off.scott s..

You need to look back into Regan/Bush/Clinton years for the proper charts to apply to that argument, as thats around the time that all started. In this case, for the dubya years, it was more a matter of corporate welfare that caused it, which assisted in leading to the economic collapse. The removal of regulations in the Clinton era, combined with the giving massive tax breaks to corporations who exported jobs overseas assisted in that. Furthermore, remember that as people lose jobs, they buy less, so imports will go down anyway in event of putting things overseas. If you look at the chart, when you see the jobless rates start going up, both imports and exports do a drop, however they get closer as most of those imports were things like TVs and game consoles...

When measuring the US trade deficit one must realize that the US has a lot of companies overseas which sell directly to that country and it's neighbors. These numbers do not show up on the trade deficit. Nor do they show up on the US GDP they show up on the host countries GDP. So using those numbers are a little flawed when analyzing the health of US trade, or linking that to protectionism. America should for all purposes be measured by GNP not GDP, but I guess since everyone else is doing it, might as well hide what's actually going on, cause guess what the profits all go back to the US eventually. A good example would be Intel.. it produces the chips all over the world, but these chips show up not on the US books, but the books of other countries. However the profits all go back to California.