Hey, if we send Trump to prison, can we send Bill and Hillary too?

[Drazzil]

And woulr it really be the worst thing in the world to see Hillary go to prison for election tampering for smothering the sanders canidacy and giving us Trump?

And here I thought you'd stopped doing drugs. Clearly you just switched to heavier stuff.

Four months sober. And that's not cool.

Then why the hell are you spouting that crap? Election tampering? Really? Hillary? So I guess I should just send you some extra tin foil for your hat?

Also, I consider myself a Vermonter. I was there when Bernie was the mayor of Burlington. But I did a serious eye-roll when, after being an independent, well, forever, he suddenly declared himself a Democrat and then complained that the DNC didn't want to back him. They had ZERO obligation to back him. And to suggest that Hillary orchestrated all that is absurd. There are plenty of things to complain about when looking at how the Democratic party handles things, but buying into the "Bernie got ROBBED!1!!11!OHNOES!!!!!" is not one of them.

Also, also, drawing equivalencies between any of the legitimate, or patently stupid, Clinton "crimes" with any of the "alleged" crimes of our current POtuS does not reflect well on your supposed backing down from supporting the latter.

You've got a point. I don't believe Hillary comitted the crimes she was accused of by the Repubs. I do however think she worked with the Dem party to stifle Bernie's run. If you say thats not a crime then I'll believe you. And I never really "supported" Trump. I just wanted him to break things. And now that I see he's thrratening something I depend on I'm no longer supporting him.

[Drazzil]

Umm I despise Ronald Reagan.

Then you should have no problem faulting him for NAFTA... which has been good on most fronts for the economy, for investors, for consumerism, for jobs...

I do. I fault Ronald Reagan for everything. You can't send Reagan to prison though. He's dead. I also fault Clinton for NAFTA too. I can have it both ways.

[Drazzil]

I mean in my ideal world Bill would get punished somehow for gutting the middle class and screwing the poor, but I'm not absolutely sure he could have seen the full reprocussions of what he did. I just figured maybe if the repubs wanted them so bad we might get Moscow Mitch and Pence in the bargain.

And Bernie, let's not forget that crook Bernie!

You want Bernie so bad? Willing to trade Cheney and W for him? If so you got a deal.

[LordMortis]

Umm I despise Ronald Reagan.

Then you should have no problem faulting him for NAFTA... which has been good on most fronts for the economy, for investors, for consumerism, for jobs...

I do. I fault Ronald Reagan for everything. You can't send Reagan to prison though. He's dead. I also fault Clinton for NAFTA too. I can have it both ways.

I'm still lost on what means. Lost jobs? Lower wages? Lower standard of living?

In over two decades the single biggest problem I have seen with NAFTA is that we consider waste a commodity. Private interests can import and export waste for profit and the nations and private interests can claim legal protected trade against NIMBY. That's "Don't Tread On Me" class puppies. After that, I'm looking for the problem.

[hepcat]

I mean in my ideal world Bill would get punished somehow for gutting the middle class and screwing the poor, but I'm not absolutely sure he could have seen the full reprocussions of what he did. I just figured maybe if the repubs wanted them so bad we might get Moscow Mitch and Pence in the bargain.

And Bernie, let's not forget that crook Bernie!

You want Bernie so bad? Willing to trade Cheney and W for him? If so you got a deal.

The corrupt must all pay.

[Drazzil]

Umm I despise Ronald Reagan.

Then you should have no problem faulting him for NAFTA... which has been good on most fronts for the economy, for investors, for consumerism, for jobs...

I do. I fault Ronald Reagan for everything. You can't send Reagan to prison though. He's dead. I also fault Clinton for NAFTA too. I can have it both ways.

I'm still lost on what means. Lost jobs? Lower wages? Lower standard of living?

In over two decades the single biggest problem I have seen with NAFTA is that we consider waste a commodity. Private interests can import and export waste for profit and the nations and private interests can claim legal protected trade against NIMBY. That's "Don't Tread On Me" class puppies. After that, I'm looking for the problem.

If I'm right about NAFTA all three? I'm going to read that stuff you posted earlier and see if I'm wrong.

[Drazzil]

Umm I despise Ronald Reagan.

Then you should have no problem faulting him for NAFTA... which has been good on most fronts for the economy, for investors, for consumerism, for jobs...

I do. I fault Ronald Reagan for everything. You can't send Reagan to prison though. He's dead. I also fault Clinton for NAFTA too. I can have it both ways.

I'm still lost on what means. Lost jobs? Lower wages? Lower standard of living?

In over two decades the single biggest problem I have seen with NAFTA is that we consider waste a commodity. Private interests can import and export waste for profit and the nations and private interests can claim legal protected trade against NIMBY. That's "Don't Tread On Me" class puppies. After that, I'm looking for the problem.

So I read your NAFTA stuff, it says that imports and exports have increased by a lot, but I'm interested in how much of our goods we export are made here. Oh and trade coming FROM Mexico seems to be in goods we use to make here but now export?

[Pyperkub]

Remember that Hollywood is an export (movie expansion has been huge, especially in China - remember that ALL of the Marvel Movies have come out as well as Avatar, Titanic, etc. - all with monstrously huge foreign grosses). Facebook, Amazon, Costco, Apple, Microsoft, etc, have all taken off since NAFTA (but not because of it).

[Jaymann]

Umm I despise Ronald Reagan.

Then you should have no problem faulting him for NAFTA... which has been good on most fronts for the economy, for investors, for consumerism, for jobs...

I do. I fault Ronald Reagan for everything. You can't send Reagan to prison though. He's dead. I also fault Clinton for NAFTA too. I can have it both ways.

I'm still lost on what means. Lost jobs? Lower wages? Lower standard of living?

In over two decades the single biggest problem I have seen with NAFTA is that we consider waste a commodity. Private interests can import and export waste for profit and the nations and private interests can claim legal protected trade against NIMBY. That's "Don't Tread On Me" class puppies. After that, I'm looking for the problem.

So I read your NAFTA stuff, it says that imports and exports have increased by a lot, but I'm interested in how much of our goods we export are made here. Oh and trade coming FROM Mexico seems to be in goods we use to make here but now export?

If we used to make them here, wouldn't we have to import?

[LordMortis]

So I read your NAFTA stuff, it says that imports and exports have increased by a lot, but I'm interested in how much of our goods we export are made here. Oh and trade coming FROM Mexico seems to be in goods we use to make here but now export?

All are at least produced here. As to bits and pieces, it's a large percentage. That's what NAFTA is (or was, now it is also about border security) all about and it is part of where the Pacific Trade Agreement was bogus. You have to look for specifics to get specifics.

Absolutely, the incoming trade is from stuff that was made here but protecting things we can not make cheaper and doing at the cost of trade that has grown is quite frankly, Trump thinking. Trade grew 10 times in just over 20 years. I don't know how to hold a conversation if price isn't worth it. Trade like this is how we shed the yoke of emperors and tyrants. We all get more. The standard of living in Mexico is raised, reducing the flow illegal immigration, and the employment required to produce 20 billion in goods and service is now the employment required to produce 200 billion in goods and services, where we get more for out dollar than we otherwise would.

[Drazzil]

So I read your NAFTA stuff, it says that imports and exports have increased by a lot, but I'm interested in how much of our goods we export are made here. Oh and trade coming FROM Mexico seems to be in goods we use to make here but now export?

All are at least produced here. As to bits and pieces, it's a large percentage. That's what NAFTA is (or was, now it is also about border security) all about and it is part of where the Pacific Trade Agreement was bogus. You have to look for specifics to get specifics.

Absolutely, the incoming trade is from stuff that was made here but protecting things we can not make cheaper and doing at the cost of trade that has grown is quite frankly, Trump thinking. Trade grew 10 times in just over 20 years. I don't know how to hold a conversation if price isn't worth it. Trade like this is how we shed the yoke of emperors and tyrants. We all get more. The standard of living in Mexico is raised, reducing the flow illegal immigration, and the employment required to produce 20 billion in goods and service is now the employment required to produce 200 billion in goods and services, where we get more for out dollar than we otherwise would.

So yeah stuff is cheaper but thats all offset because the middle class is gone. Yeah trade increases a ton but the people making the money ain't the average person. It's the moneyed guys... Even people who have a sum in their investment portfolio don't feel it enough to make up for the fact that the economy is destroyed.

[LordMortis]

So yeah stuff is cheaper but thats all offset because the middle class is gone. Yeah trade increases a ton but the people making the money ain't the average person. It's the moneyed guys... Even people who have a sum in their investment portfolio don't feel it enough to make up for the fact that the economy is destroyed.

I'm missing the connect that says middle class would be larger with less trade with Mexico. That jobs would be preserved and they'd better than the ones created. What is your vision in the non NAFTA world and how do we get there?

[Drazzil]

So yeah stuff is cheaper but thats all offset because the middle class is gone. Yeah trade increases a ton but the people making the money ain't the average person. It's the moneyed guys... Even people who have a sum in their investment portfolio don't feel it enough to make up for the fact that the economy is destroyed.

I'm missing the connect that says middle class would be larger with less trade with Mexico. That jobs would be preserved and they'd better than the ones created. What is your vision in the non NAFTA world and how do we get there?

So you don't think the whole goal of our economic policy shouldn't be the maximum amount of good for the maximum number of people?

[Isgrimnur]

[Drazzil]

So yeah stuff is cheaper but thats all offset because the middle class is gone. Yeah trade increases a ton but the people making the money ain't the average person. It's the moneyed guys... Even people who have a sum in their investment portfolio don't feel it enough to make up for the fact that the economy is destroyed.

I'm missing the connect that says middle class would be larger with less trade with Mexico. That jobs would be preserved and they'd better than the ones created. What is your vision in the non NAFTA world and how do we get there?

I guess my real beef isin't with NAFTA, it's with free trade in general. I don't think corporations should be allowed to offshore American work to countries where the standard of living is lower just so that the shareholders can make profits. But thats beyond the scope of this thread.

This thread is about the lefties you would agree should be imprisoned in exchange for the righties you want to see in the klink.

[TheMix]

Oddly enough, I actually am only interested in sending people that have been convicted of crimes to the "klink". But to each their own.

[noxiousdog]

So yeah stuff is cheaper but thats all offset because the middle class is gone. Yeah trade increases a ton but the people making the money ain't the average person. It's the moneyed guys... Even people who have a sum in their investment portfolio don't feel it enough to make up for the fact that the economy is destroyed.

I'm missing the connect that says middle class would be larger with less trade with Mexico. That jobs would be preserved and they'd better than the ones created. What is your vision in the non NAFTA world and how do we get there?

I guess my real beef isin't with NAFTA, it's with free trade in general. I don't think corporations should be allowed to offshore American work to countries where the standard of living is lower just so that the shareholders can make profits. But thats beyond the scope of this thread.

This thread is about the lefties you would agree should be imprisoned in exchange for the righties you want to see in the klink.

It's not so shareholders can make profits. In fact, they probably make smaller (nominally) profits. The margins remain roughly the same.

Here's how business works from an investment philosphy.

Revenues - Capital expenditures + operational expenditures = Profit

When Profit / (capital expenditures) > 20% you have a great business. This makes shareholders happy.

Note that if you have an industry where this is possible, competitors will rush in as long as there is room for them in the market. When Uber was created, lyft soon followed. The cell phone industry. Lots of competitors. insurance. same. There are a few industries where the capital expenditures are so high it is hard to get competitors and in fact, often there is consolidation, such as telecom.

Manufacturing is not one of those places.

So, going back to our equation, when there is competition, profit becomes a constant. If you don't believe me, look at any mature industry and you'll see profit margins are pretty consistent across companies inside that industry.

This means that if operational expenditures fall (foreign labor), revenues will fall because profit will remain consistent or a competitor will step in and take your market share. If revenues are falling this means the consumer is paying less.

How do you think we get $300 50" flat screen TVs? How do you think we get cars with way more features for about the same as we paid 20 years ago?

In the 80's labor unions were totally against free trade. By the late 90's they changed their mind.

[Drazzil]

So yeah stuff is cheaper but thats all offset because the middle class is gone. Yeah trade increases a ton but the people making the money ain't the average person. It's the moneyed guys... Even people who have a sum in their investment portfolio don't feel it enough to make up for the fact that the economy is destroyed.

I'm missing the connect that says middle class would be larger with less trade with Mexico. That jobs would be preserved and they'd better than the ones created. What is your vision in the non NAFTA world and how do we get there?

I guess my real beef isin't with NAFTA, it's with free trade in general. I don't think corporations should be allowed to offshore American work to countries where the standard of living is lower just so that the shareholders can make profits. But thats beyond the scope of this thread.

This thread is about the lefties you would agree should be imprisoned in exchange for the righties you want to see in the klink.

It's not so shareholders can make profits. In fact, they probably make smaller (nominally) profits. The margins remain roughly the same.

Here's how business works from an investment philosphy.

Revenues - Capital expenditures + operational expenditures = Profit

When Profit / (capital expenditures) > 20% you have a great business. This makes shareholders happy.

Note that if you have an industry where this is possible, competitors will rush in as long as there is room for them in the market. When Uber was created, lyft soon followed. The cell phone industry. Lots of competitors. insurance. same. There are a few industries where the capital expenditures are so high it is hard to get competitors and in fact, often there is consolidation, such as telecom.

Manufacturing is not one of those places.

So, going back to our equation, when there is competition, profit becomes a constant. If you don't believe me, look at any mature industry and you'll see profit margins are pretty consistent across companies inside that industry.

This means that if operational expenditures fall (foreign labor), revenues will fall because profit will remain consistent or a competitor will step in and take your market share. If revenues are falling this means the consumer is paying less.

How do you think we get $300 50" flat screen TVs? How do you think we get cars with way more features for about the same as we paid 20 years ago?

In the 80's labor unions were totally against free trade. By the late 90's they changed their mind.

Great. We get cheap shit we cant afford... Horray?

[Blackhawk]

Better to have massively expensive shit we can't afford?

[noxiousdog]

Great. We get cheap shit we cant afford... Horray?

That has nothing to do with NAFTA.

Look, you don't have to believe me. Research what unions and liberal economists think about free trade. This issue is as settled as climate change.

[Drazzil]

Great. We get cheap shit we cant afford... Horray?

That has nothing to do with NAFTA.

Look, you don't have to believe me. Research what unions and liberal economists think about free trade. This issue is as settled as climate change.

Less jobs for US citizens = lower wages, lower tax revenues, lower tax base, less infrastructure. Oh and we aren't taxing the people who made all the money off screwing the middle class so government have to go into debt to keep the lights on. The issue is NOT settled as you say because people are starting to wake up to the reality that free trade isin't.

[hepcat]

So facts aren't a real hurdle for you, are they?

[Drazzil]

Great. We get cheap shit we cant afford... Horray?

That has nothing to do with NAFTA.

Look, you don't have to believe me. Research what unions and liberal economists think about free trade. This issue is as settled as climate change.

Oh yeah. And the countries that accept our factories to produce our cheap crap now are forced to respect US IP "rights" Most notably in the field of pharma and medical equipment. Meaning they cant manufacture cheaper drugs. Now we get fucked coming AND going.

[Kraken]

And yet, we're in a full-employment economy. Everyone who wants a job has one...or two. The quality of those jobs is a related topic, as is the growing non-employee gig economy...but IDK how much one can blame those trends on trade policy.

[hepcat]

Well, that's the first time I've seen pharmaceuticals being used in the IP sharing argument. I guess that's one way to completely twist the actually sound intention of forcing China not to steal American company's technology so they can then sell it overseas at a vastly cheaper rate, thus forcing American citizens out of jobs.

Dude, you're flailing. Let it go. Every argument you make just drives home the simple fact that you just don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

[TheMix]

I find myself being reminded of Bill Maher's segment:


Except that Maher is doing a comedy bit.

[Drazzil]

Well, that's the first time I've seen pharmaceuticals being used in the IP sharing argument. I guess that's one way to completely twist the actually sound intention of forcing China not to steal American company's technology so they can then sell it overseas at a vastly cheaper rate, thus forcing American citizens out of jobs.

Dude, you're flailing. Let it go. Every argument you make just drives home the simple fact that you just don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

Further discussion about this subject does seem futile yes.

[noxiousdog]

Great. We get cheap shit we cant afford... Horray?

That has nothing to do with NAFTA.

Look, you don't have to believe me. Research what unions and liberal economists think about free trade. This issue is as settled as climate change.

Less jobs for US citizens = lower wages, lower tax revenues, lower tax base, less infrastructure. Oh and we aren't taxing the people who made all the money off screwing the middle class so government have to go into debt to keep the lights on. The issue is NOT settled as you say because people are starting to wake up to the reality that free trade isin't.

Donald Trump and Boris Johnson. Yep. they don't like it. The rest of humanity is pretty happy with it.

But if that's the side you want to be on, good luck.

[Blackhawk]

Draz, if you ever wonder how the Republican base is still supporting Trump despite all the facts that show they're in the wrong, this is how. You're doing it right now.

[LordMortis]

I guess my real beef isin't with NAFTA, it's with free trade in general. I don't think corporations should be allowed to offshore American work to countries where the standard of living is lower just so that the shareholders can make profits. But thats beyond the scope of this thread.

This thread is about the lefties you would agree should be imprisoned in exchange for the righties you want to see in the klink.

We can put that on hold. I also have a beef with the multinationals which NAFTA helps shield us from. We ask of and tax our corporations better with NAFTA. It's not perfect but it's better. If I had my druthers, we'd be going after Delaware. Could it improve? Likely. Put up a plan.

Less jobs for US citizens = lower wages, lower tax revenues, lower tax base, less infrastructure. Oh and we aren't taxing the people who made all the money off screwing the middle class so government have to go into debt to keep the lights on. The issue is NOT settled as you say because people are starting to wake up to the reality that free trade isin't.

You come back to this. That NAFTA is the flight of jobs. Help me see this. Ford sends the Focus to Mexico? Why? Because they can't make an affordable Focus in the US. The alternative to the Focus being built in Mexico is not to build the Focus. Now, that supply chain. NAFTA keeps nearly all of those parts for that Focus in North America. So the steel comes from the midwest. It ships from US trains. And those components come from Leer and JCI and Kelsey Hayes and all these other US companies. And then you get companies like Bremo and ZF getting locked out, so what do they do? They open plants in North America. And then they discover that that shipping parts was crazy expensive and they start making more capital and tooling investments here.

The days of 15 people running a simple part line are long gone. Being protective of those jobs will see companies become Kodak. It sucks for all of us would love a mindless job that we can leave at the door after 8 hours five days a week for 30 years before being taken care of for the rest of our lives. That was my dream, so I feel the empathy of how much that sucks. That's reality. There is no value addition at simply being present for 40 hours a week any more. NAFTA didn't make that happen. Microsoft and IBM did.

Now leaving my rant aside. Please help me see how NAFTA has resulted in job loss or how it correlates with taxing investors. If my understanding is correct, your thought is that median income (where half the household make more and half make less) should start declining on January 1st 1994 rapidly descending in to a free fall, with 25 years of trying to pick up the pieces.

Oh yeah. And the countries that accept our factories to produce our cheap crap now are forced to respect US IP "rights" Most notably in the field of pharma and medical equipment. Meaning they cant manufacture cheaper drugs. Now we get fucked coming AND going.

I can't even begin to empathize with this. Are IP rights broken? I think so. Free Trade, needs to go because, Fuck IP? What and who are you trying to protect and how? I'm having a hard time following the jump back and forth from the Rand "you are the means to your own end" to the Marx "The means of production belongs to the people." That's why I'm looking for the evidence that moves your train of thought.

[Zarathud]

I don't think corporations should be allowed to offshore American work to countries where the standard of living is lower just so that the shareholders can make profits.

Those aren’t necessarily “American” jobs. We’re (you’re) not entitled to them. We have to compete for them. We used to compete easily based on innovation, productivity, and management.

Now it’s hard, and Republican policy incentivizes low worker protections at the same time modern tech and supply management makes it easy to get that work overseas. Those low wage jobs go to Republican states and districts that still can’t compete. And these areas will continue to lose the battle.

Insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and not adapting. That’s what protectionism will do. We charge ourselves more for less, and still can’t compete. Ask the Russians and old Europeans how that worked out for them.

Putting people in prison might make you feel better or funnier, but it’s stupid and unconstitutional. There’s no quid pro quo in going down an enemies list. Especially when the Right has its head up their ass and believes ridiculous propaganda.

[Drazzil]

I don't think corporations should be allowed to offshore American work to countries where the standard of living is lower just so that the shareholders can make profits.

Those aren’t necessarily “American” jobs. We’re (you’re) not entitled to them. We have to compete for them. We used to compete easily based on innovation, productivity, and management.

Now it’s hard, and Republican policy incentivizes low worker protections at the same time modern tech and supply management makes it easy to get that work overseas. Those low wage jobs go to Republican states and districts that still can’t compete. And these areas will continue to lose the battle.

Insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and not adapting. That’s what protectionism will do. We charge ourselves more for less, and still can’t compete. Ask the Russians and old Europeans how that worked out for them.

Putting people in prison might make you feel better or funnier, but it’s stupid and unconstitutional. There’s no quid pro quo in going down an enemies list. Especially when the Right has its head up their ass and believes ridiculous propaganda.

Umm... Wow. How do I even begin to address all of this. First. It's not that Americans lack in productivity. We are actually one of the hardest working most productive countries in the world. The reason we keep losing our jobs is because our politicans are paid to do so. If you look at other spots (say, Germany, Japan or China) those places protect their economies using various methods.

As far as used to compete based on innovation, mgt etc. The tax policies the US formerly encouraged business reinvestment, instead of short term looting.

I don't know why I keep getting sucked back into this thread. I'm not convincing anyone here, and vice versa.

[gilraen]

If you look at other spots (say, Germany, Japan or China) those places protect their economies using various methods.

You know Japan has been in a recession for, like, 20 years, right?

China doesn't "protect" its economy. It floods the global market with cheap goods because it can make them cheap (at the expense of exploiting millions of workers and stealing other countries' IP).

[Drazzil]

If you look at other spots (say, Germany, Japan or China) those places protect their economies using various methods.

China doesn't "protect" its economy. It floods the global market with cheap goods because it can make them cheap (at the expense of exploiting millions of workers and stealing other countries' IP).

China artifically devalues its currency, provides shitloads of tax breaks to manufacturing and has tons of unwritten laws protecting its industries... So yes they do.

Japan in a recession? Maybe. But they also maintain full employment at all costs. They have to. Overpopulated island powderkeg something something.

[Zarathud]

First. It's not that Americans lack in productivity.

Wrong. Durable goods manufacturing productivity stalled out a decade ago while non-durable productivity hasn’t gained in 3 decades. link.

We are actually one of the hardest working most productive countries in the world.

. Wrong again.

https://cdn.howmuch.net/content/images/ ... 3-0624.png

The reason we keep losing our jobs is because our politicans are paid to do so.

You aren’t persuasive because you’re just blaming scapegoats without evidence. You keep losing your jobs because of Republican policies to disempower workers and a failure to understand that competition means we need to work with our minds more than our hands. That means education and knowledge workers. Blue states do better than Red states for this reason.

If you look at other spots (say, Germany, Japan or China) those places protect their economies using various methods.

How so? What methods? Germany is a major exporter, as is Japan and China. You are buying into a lie of “unfair trade.”

As far as used to compete based on innovation, mgt etc. The tax policies the US formerly encouraged business reinvestment, instead of short term looting.

Again, wrong. US tax policy favors investment (particularly the Trump 100% expensing rule) but the short-term business view and low tax on capital gains incentivizes flipping that investment rather than earnings.

[Kraken]

I don't know why I keep getting sucked back into this thread. I'm not convincing anyone here, and vice versa.

50% of this forum is people agreeing with one another. 45% is people debating details of the things we agree on. 3% is trolling. Go ahead, be part of that last 2% if you're confident you're on solid ground. If you can support a strong case that protectionism is good, I'd like to read it. You haven't, yet.

[Grifman]

Less jobs for US citizens = lower wages, lower tax revenues, lower tax base, less infrastructure. Oh and we aren't taxing the people who made all the money off screwing the middle class so government have to go into debt to keep the lights on. The issue is NOT settled as you say because people are starting to wake up to the reality that free trade isin't.

It's not less jobs, it's different jobs. As noted above, US tech firms dominate - FB, Google, MS, Intel, Apple, etc. US entertainment media dominate in music, movies and television. We've traded manufacturing jobs for tech and media jobs, all of which pay more than manufacturing jobs. That's what's getting lost in the equation. Rather than people working on an assembly line we've traded them for special effects artists in movies, software engineers, product designers, etc.

Yes, free trade is not so great if you are an assembly line worker but that work is going away anyway, free trade is just speeding that up. You have to remember that US manufacturing manufactures not just for the US market but many for the world market. If they had to do all of their manufacturing in the US, not only would goods be more expensive here, there would still be fewer jobs because they could not compete with foreign competitors and their exports would not exist.

It's more complicated and a deeper issue than what you make it out to be.