Kent Pitman

Kent Pitman
Location
New England, USA
Title
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
Bio
I've been using the net in various roles—technical, social, and political—for the last 30 years. I'm disappointed that most forums don't pay for good writing and I'm ever in search of forums that do. (I've not seen any Tippem money, that's for sure.) And I worry some that our posting here for free could one day put paid writers in Closed Salon out of work. See my personal home page for more about me.

MY RECENT POSTS

NOVEMBER 25, 2011 4:58PM

A Perfect Matching Gift

Rate: 20 Flag

It’s common to receive a charity promotion that says “Donate now because someone has offered a matching gift.” For every dollar you send, they’ll send a dollar. It apparently gets people giving more. People like to see their money multiplied that way. Such a donation magnifies what you give, often by 100%, depending on the terms of the match.

People like the tax deduction for charities, too. It also offers what you can think of as a matching gift. Let’s suppose, just for illustration, that you pay that you pay 20% tax on the high end of your income, the so-called “marginal rate” at which new dollars of income are taxed if you make more money. Deductions are taken off the top, so every dollar you deduct means you don’t get taxed 20% on that dollar. So if you give a dollar, you pay $0.20 back on your taxes. It’s like you gave only 80% because you got 20% back. That means it’s like a 25% matching gift—$20 from the government for every $80 you spend means the government gives one dollar every time you give four. A lot of people are motivated by that.

So what if I told you that you could get a 1000% match on your gift? That is, for every dollar you give, $11 would be given to your charity. No tax deduction on this charity, but who cares? This is way better than the 25% match that you get from taxes. How would I manage this amazing feat?

Well, first, let me tell you who this deserving charity is: companies with products Made in America. OK, it’s not even an official charity, certainly nothing you can deduct on your taxes. And it’s not even just one company. But is it deserving your support? You bet. They’re working hard for those dollars.

“How does it work?” I hear some of you asking. “Does it require filling out a lot of forms?” Nope. No forms. The donation is instantaneously managed. You just buy something and all the paperwork takes care of itself. You just buy American.

“But I’m not rich. I can’t always afford to buy American. The ‘other brand’ is often cheaper, and I need to make every dollar count. The advertisements on TV tell me that they’ll always undersell the competition.” That’s right. But by how much? Let’s look at the difference. Suppose you can buy an American-made item but it costs a little more. Let’s say it costs $1.10 but the foreign item costs $1.00. You’d probably say you were just throwing away that extra dime, right? Not at all. The effect of that one thin dime could be way more powerful than you imagine. It’s hard to find a more powerful way to kickstart the economy, and it’s something you can personally do.

Let’s suppose you choose to think of that dime as a charity. It’s money you think you’re just giving away, that you didn’t have to. You can’t write it off on your taxes—it’s not that kind of charity. But it’s money you didn’t have to spend. What would happen if you did this? Well, it gets magnified by what amounts to a matching gift, or you can think of it that way. So you buy something at $1.10 and you think of it as paying the $1.00 you’d wanted to spend and $0.10 to charity. But the company sees the full $1.10 as income. That’s $1.10 that went to your chosen charity, American industry. That’s a multiplier of 11x. $0.10 from you and $1.00 from a matching contribution, which supplied for free by the marketplace. A 1000% match, or $10 on every $1 that you put in as your “charity contribution.”

If you have to pay $1.50 rather than $1.00, it might seem like the fifty cents is just being given away. But $1.50 goes to American industry. So from the $1.50 you pay, $0.50 is your share of the “charity” contribution but $1.50 gets sent to the deserving recipient. That’s a 200% match. Even if you have to pay $2.00 rather than $1.00, you’re still getting a 100% match on your money. (I’ll save you the trouble of computing it: It has to get to $5 for American goods instead of $1 for foreign goods before you’re getting “only” the 25% match that you got on a tax deduction, where the government contributed $1 for every $4 you contributed.)

Please note, too, that these people you’re sending to by buying American are not just people with their hands out on a street corner. Such people may need help, too, but often that they need is jobs, not cash handouts. American industry isn’t just standing around idly. They’re working hard day in and day out to make quality products that you’d like to buy. They just can’t always hit the price point that foreign countries can. Many foreign countries get that price point either because they manipulate currency or because they don’t pay for a living wage or because they don’t pay for important benefits like health care and retirement. We in the US can either compete with those countries by insisting that our country lower its prices (and its employment standards) until we match up with them, or by insisting that we’ll pay for higher priced products here because we know we’re investing in a living standard that we want the whole world to match. If we say that getting the absolute lowest price is always the most important thing, we are saying that those other things—decent wages, health care, etc.—don’t matter.

Mostly we’re talking about stuff we have to buy anyway. So when there’s a choice, why not send your hard-earned money to companies that make things in America? Those companies can then succeed and even expand, hiring new employees, which may help those people on the street corner even more than a handout would anyway.

And don’t forget the money you pay will be taxed as income by companies you’re buying from, which means the US government will see revenue that can pay for teachers, fire fighters, policeman, public infrastructure like roads and bridges, social security, and health care—even as we also pay down the national debt. The better our national revenues, the less pain all around for everyone as we work through a balanced approach to resolving our economic issues.

Buying American-made products is a real win-win-win-win... And it starts with the simple act of knowing what you really want to invest in, and putting your money where you really want that money to go—a prosperous American economy.

Now how much would you pay?


If you got value from this post, please "rate" it.

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Kent. I've made a pledge this holiday buying season that I will either buy local or buy American. In rare circumstances, I'm buying American products that are manufactured elsewhere, but only if I can't get it made here. I feel a lot better going into small stores and paying a small amount more rather than the box stores. And, given how badly people are behaving this season, I'm loathe to go in a box store anyway.
Today, at the Dickens Festival in Skaneateles, we ate lunch at a restaurant, and purchased two artisan-made pieces of jewelry. I felt better about those purchases than if I had bought some piece of crap at Wal-Mart.
Excellent analysis. I love the way you put it out there as a challenge.
Sometimes I think we are our own worst enemy. We complain about no jobs here and yet we love to buy foreign.
rated with love
FLW, I agree that sometimes it's not feasible to be dogmatic about it, but it's important to understand that it makes a difference and that a few pennies price should not be the big decider.

Poetess, thanks. Yes, I think it is a challenge and something one has to just keep working at. Investment is about more than just making a return on a dollar, it's about putting your money in endeavors you want to see succeed so you can feel good saying “I helped that happen.”
I'm surprised you didn't bring in the multiplier effect. Every dollar spent domestically (on construction projects, for example) has a multiplier effect of 3.5X. This means that for every dollar spent domestically, it circulates 3.5 times before it comes to a rest in a stable investment account.

Now, when you buy foreign -- you still have a multiplier effect with middlemen and shippers, but its effect is much less. Purchasing things from China at Wal-Mart is "good" for the global economy. After all, Wal-Mart and the Chinese don't complain one bit. But it's infinitely bad for the local economy. All you have to do to prove this statement is to see the hundreds of abandoned Main Streets all over America where the big box stores have settled.

More than that, by subsidizing the global economy at the expense of the local, you're also subsidizing global warming, financialization, and the hollowing out of the American economy.
Lefty, thanks for visiting. In defense of the things I left out: it was running long. I thought of a number of those things and appreciate your raising them in discussion but there are so many reasons I just had to stop. :)

Also, you didn't mention, it's not just subsidizing that's an issue. Buying local improves the local supply chain. It makes the world less fragile. If there are wars or floods or other events in the future that disrupt global supply, it's good for local areas to be more self-reliant.
Part of me is wondering how anyone is spending anything just now. I want to light candles for Christmas gifts of love ... Still, if people are able to buy gifts this year ..., you make the gift seem a double gift. Is there ever a time when you don't challenge us to think. Thanks for this, Kent.
Anna, you're very kind. I'm glad you got some good thought from this. As for finding the money, I know what you mean and don't know where many people find it sometimes, especially in this economic climate, but at Christmas so many people do. I just figure they should make it, as you put it, a double-gift. Best use of scarce funds... It is awfully weird to me, by the way, that to have a richer society one must spend. I often wonder about that. Wouldn't you think we should be richer if we didn't spend and didn't need so much? Puzzle for another day. Thanks for visiting.
Seems to me that we're at a stage where we can enjoy globalism while living, producing and buying largely locally. Also, China, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, etc. have enough people that they should soon if not now buy their own products. Their manufacturers need to take a page out of Henry Ford, who paid his workers sufficiently that they could buy the cars they made.
Myriad, I'm with you on the Henry Ford reference. Except that I hope this time around the cars are electric because the world simply cannot tolerate the emissions of that many people burning fossil fuels.
Excellent points.

Buying American is not just a good idea. I think it also may turn out to be key to our survival. We are currently losing entire industries. We are now at the point at which we couldn't manufacture some things even if we wanted to because we no longer manufacture certain necessary components here.

In addition, centralizing the manufacture of certain items in overseas plants puts the supply chain at risk. There already have been situations in which a flood or earthquake or other natural disaster has destroyed the only plant making certain critical items. I recently read that TV production was almost halted due to a shortage of videotape, as some overseas natural disaster destroyed the only plant making it.

In a Nation article titled "How America Could Collapse," author Matt Stoler noted that "Worryingly, there’s been very little consideration of how systemic collapses can happen in another, perhaps more dangerous realm—the industrial supply system that keeps us in everything from medicine to food to cars to, yes, videotape. In 2004, for instance, England closed one single factory, which caused the United States to lose half of its flu vaccine supply.

"Barry Lynn of the New America Foundation has been studying industrial supply shocks since 1999, when he noticed that global computer chip production was concentrated in Taiwan. After a severe earthquake in that country, the global computer industry nearly shut down, crashing the stocks of large computer makers. This level of concentration of the production of key components in a globalized economy is a new phenomenon. Lynn’s work points to the highly dangerous side of globalization, the flip side of a hyper-efficient global supply chain. When one link in that chain is broken, there is no fallback."
Mishima, thanks for underscoring these additional points about the fragility of the modern world. I'd raised the issue of supply chains above in this conversation in response to remarks by Old New Lefty, but I also talk about this in depth in my 2010 article The Big C.
what a convoluted way to try to patch up the lack of a tariff. worse, it doesn't work. worse still, neither you nor any ordinary citizen can compel your government to protect jobs.
Al, the issue isn't protecting jobs per se. Even if I could use government power, the proper exercise would require government to create a level playing field. I'd be OK with taxation on imports where the imported goods were playing unfairly. I want a fair market, not a free and unfettered one. Government exists to tip the balances back to level. But beyond that, to the extent there are free markets, each purchaser is a voice in the market. The choice between solar and oil may not all be price-based, for example; people can choose to pay more for one or the other because they like the outcome, not just because they want to save money. They can value things differently. And the same is true of favoring companies for other reasons through purchases: If it's a free choice about what to buy, one might as well take the full range of considerations into account. I admit it's clumsy, but it's a perfectly valid tool to use.
With so many people suffering wage losses, if not outright job losses, it forces a great many people to squeeze their every remaining dollar as hard as they can. This gives a boost to the sale of foreign, cheaply made, goods. The really, really hurtful thing about this is that often those cheap foreign made goods are made by American companies who have closed up shop in America, displaced thousands to millions of American workers, and are profiteering on the people of those foreign states.

The worst of it is that those companies KNOW that what they are doing is unsustainable in the long run but do it anyway because their CEOs want the bonuses paid for short term profits. This is worse than mere "greed capitalism" this is "stupid capitalism".
.
I bought American made only for one year. Could NOT purchase a new toaster.
Skypixie0, I assume the “this” to which you refer is outsourcing. Yes, it's had a lot of ills, and in fact it's a lot of the same issues. It's the urge to expand markets that brought the problems but I'm not sure that expansion really helped because ultimately it just runs into a bigger wall. Plus, as noted by Mishima above, it's there are a lot of issues to do with making the supply line more fragile that came up along the way. This is everything about the carrying capacity of the planet because at some point we'll realize we're beyond it and that this dependence on the “smoothly working machine” of the global economic supply chain that was ill-advised if the machine ever falters. But individuals have profited in the short term and they seem to think that's the only value.
This certainly sounds good as far as it goes but we also need more openness. One big example of "made in America" that doesn't meet expectations is chairs that are assembled in Mass and use parts that are manufactured around the world. the assembly is a minimum amount of work the real work is in the lather work done else where in fact they even come into the country finished.

Ideally we need to get rid of all these "proprietary information" laws that enable them to hide all their scams in trade secret files and we need to globalize workers right and environmental protection. Half measures often fall apart as soon as they find a way to get around them; which usually doesn't take long.
KMoore, I don't mean to say that there are no other issues on which to shop. One still has to buy things that work. I am here mainly focusing on the question of whether it costs more to make a product that works here in the US, and whether it's worth paying that additional cost.
Zachery, I agree. The pedigree of a product can be complicated, and a bit of transparency there could be good. And there are different ways of looking at it. I don't think a product is tainted for having a foreign component. I'm not really here advocating exclusivity of trade. But I am saying that we need more than a mere veneer of American industry. We need a real stake. A veneer will not sustain us economically. (And I am agreeing with those who have added that we should be adequately self-sufficient that we could survive being cut off from foreign supplies if a war or catastrophe occurred. We're too fragile right now.)
good argument, well made
Kent, I agree with much of what you say. However, I also have to agree with Skypixeo, and Kmoore. So many people today, are strapped for cash. They then search for the cheapest items they can find. Which in many cases are made by American companies that have long ago shipped all their manufacturing jobs to third world countries. Then there is the case, where you can't find a lot of items, actually made in the USA. When was the last time you went grocery shopping. Look carefully at the labels. I haven't yet seen any fish sold in our local markets that don't say "product of China, or product of Thialand". Don't we still have fishermen in this country? Ditto for a lot of processed food. Apple juice that says, frozen product of USA and or China." It's almost impossible to purchase " American made Goods"! Rated anyway
Kent,
We, in North America, are already, in world terms, in the top 5% in wealth and income. I'd like to see us change our system of inheritance so that ALL citizens share in our prosperity by means of owning shares in our corporations and other successful enterprises. In fact I'd like to see us all, collectively (bad word, I know), become, in the world economy, "the 1%."

It's time ALL of our citizens earned a large portion of their incomes from share earnings instead of labour. Hey if it's good enough for the wealthy, I think I could suffer it!

Our problems have so often been described as being due to a lack of good-paying jobs. They're not. They're due to a lack of adequate income by the majority of our population. We have, for so very long, equated jobs with income when we speak of the large majority of our people. We don't necessarily do that when we speak of the wealthy. We know that their wealth, usually in the form of ownership of stocks, shares, bonds, etc., "works" for them and earns them huge incomes - sometimes truly excessive incomes.

I'm not some silly socialist who wants to "hang-'em-high" and grab what they have or force them into labouring at shit jobs. I'm much more interested in seeing us all move on up to their level. With North Americans as the world's 1%, we could stabilize world economies and not be at their mercy.

Just a thought.
.
Nikki, thanks. :)

Kenny, I've been careful not to frame this as “you must do this or you're a bad person.” I understand well that the choices are complex. My point is mainly to alert people to the fact that these are choices that really matter, and that can help us all. Giving up $0.01 to buy a US product for $2.01 instead of a foreign one for $2.00 is not just a 20,000% matching gift to the US economy, it can make the difference between whether the US product succeeds or fails. It can make the difference between whether more people go on unemployment. That can ultimately raise taxes by more than the $0.01 that would have been saved. One still must live in the world and make many hard choices, so I'm not villifying anyone, just urging people to think about how the product price tag might not tell the whole story.

Skypixie0, I'd even go farther than saying it's not socialist—it's outright capitalist to claim you want some decent competition. See my remarks about “many minds” in my 2009 article Rethinking Mega-Corporations. I often think what alleged capitalists of today want (perhaps I should call them neocapitalists to distinguish from what I think of a true capitalism) is market lock-in so they don't have to compete. The uncertainty they want to get rid of is, when you strip the other stuff away, really “competition at all.” They want to be able to do multi-year planning, but planning is really the essence of socialism, or so they tell us. They're really supposed to be responding more dynamically to things, but they just want that to be a fiction and not really something they can predict. Can't have it both ways. Anyway, thanks for chiming in with interesting thoughts.
Fantastic post, Frank. I buy many vintage household items at garage/yard sales and you would not believe the amazing antiques and other sundries I find. It is important to me to see who the maker is. The best and really well-designed goods almost invariably have "Made in the USA" marked somewhere. I pay next to nothing for amazing things and if I can ever get around to setting up an etsy account, I could also make a small fortune reselling them at the antique store prices. China doesn't get a penny from my purchases.
Miguela, welcome. I'm Kent, by the way, not Frank, but that's OK. I'm assuming you were addressing me. :) Anyway, thanks for mentioning the notion of buying used goods. Actually, once you're buying second-hand, it almost doesn't matter if it was made in the USA or not, though some may still prefer that for quality or other reasons. The money for the original product even on a product that was originally foreign-made has already gone overseas and the person selling it to you is almost invariably someone who lives in the US—unless you're buying long distance over eBay, which doesn't sound like your situation. So the money you pay is going into local hands and will almost surely be spent in the local economy. So almost any used item, regardless of origin, is good for the US economy. If one wants a foreign car, for example, while still wanting to support the US economy, I recommend buying it used because it puts money back into the pocket of someone in the US and/or supports a local dealer. Thanks for reminding me about that.
Very good post! Maybe we should have a "Buy Made-in-America" day (although it should be year-around), similar to the “Buy from a Local Business” day. I was geared up to do my part for the latter, but fell ill this morning. I guess I could postpone it for later.
Kent,
I presume that your sentence.......""The uncertainty they want to get rid of is, when you strip the other stuff away, really “competition at all.”" was meant to contain the word "no" between "really and competition.

I agree with you absolutely. Real capitalism is always open for all to enter the competition on a relatively even playing field. The present situation, which Dennis Loo refers to as "neo-liberalism", is definitely NOT a competitive system open to all to participate. I have long held the thought that proper capitalism is the Rolls Royce of economic systems with the caveat that "proper capitalism" be defined as very different from oligarchy.

We brought forward with us, from our feudalist days, direct line inheritance. This allows massive amounts of wealth to become stagnant in the hands of too few people. For a capitalist system to work a it should, the wealth needs to keep moving. I'm told that every dollar needs to move 16 times per year for a capitalist system to be healthy. Since about half of all wealth is not liquid enough to do that, the liquid part must move about 32 times per year. It ain't doin' it.

I'd drop direct line inheritance and substitute generational inheritance. All the wealth of those who die in (for example) a 3 year period ought to become a shared inheritance for all the new citizens born in that period of time. Let it gather as much interest, dividends, etc., as it can until those new citizens become about 2o years of age, then given to them as their citizens share of the wealth of their society.

From that inheritance let them finance their further education, training, and so forth. Their would be no need of welfare of any sort. Free medical or education of any sort. Each citizen would have in his hands the means of taking care of his own needs without asking his fellow citizens to pay his bills for him.

Imagine the tax savings if we didn't have to support a large chunk of the population because they were "poor"!! Imagine how healthy the economy would be with so much of the wealth of that nation in hands that can, and will, spend it. Imagine all the businesses that can successfully compete for a share of half the wealth instead of only for the 10% that is presently in the hands of 90% of the population. Imagine the dividends paid by those successful business to their owners - the population - and the following generation's inheritance!

Let's make capitalism work! Let's introduce Citizens' Capitalism!

(Oh, how I can rant on about this!)
.
Kanuk, sorry to hear about you falling ill. I hope you're on the mend soon. Thanks for taking time out to visit.

Skypixie0, you're right on the missing “no.” Sorry, that happens. It sounds indeed like you have a lot to say. Perhaps you should blog it so there's more room for the discussion it warrants since we're drifting a bit far afield here. I have more to say on topics of citizen participation, of inherited wealth, etc. Probably I should write my own blog as well. But for now I'll just hold my tongue, before I blather on at even more length, and I'll try to keep to just thanking you for the comments, which are appreciated.
Kent,
I have already posted a number of blogs on this subject. I would be honoured to have you read and comment on any - or all - of them!
.
On a side bar, I recently discovered that most pet food and treats are made "off shore." Not just China, but other "foreign materials" included in the US manufacturer's products. It's real dicey, as the fine print reads, "Made in US from US and "foreign made materials." The caveat recently, was over dog treats that were made in China and sudden death of numerous dogs who ate the treats/food.
Being a cautious consumer and a pro Made in America shopper, is quite a challenge but a worthy one when it is certain to provide income within our borders. Sadly, most folks don't have enough expendable income to boost the economy that much, when purchasing products made here. I heard on some TV news show today, that it is equally important to buy products that were conceived, created and marketed here, as there are numerous workers, inventors, designers, etc., on this side of the product inception and development process as well. That being said, I think of Apple and all our Macs, iPhones, etc...that are made in China, though thousands are employed here and helping the US economy; one of many high tech companies among myriads of others that do the same. But...and it's a big but...I am 100% for buying American and especially the smaller industries down to the mom and pop stores, cottage industries, etc., that need all the fiscal support they can get to survive in this economy. Very cogent and vital discussion all the way around.
Skypixie0, send me PM with a few specific titles you suggest.

Cathy, you're right it's difficult and quite a tangle to navigate. I'm not here suggesting it has to be all or none, right or wrong. I trust people to make good judgments when they take the time to think at all. I think too often we've just been on autopilot and the mere fact of having discussions will help us a lot.
Chiming in late:

Kent, thank you so very much for this post. ["Long time no hear-ie" ;-)].

I was fully engrossed in this discussion while reading it and was about to start a blog of my own in hopes it could maybe be a place for some follow up on the many threads of the comments here, but then we had a power failure here. Looking forward to continuing discussions here and many thanks!
Marte, there's no deadline for when to chime in. And anyway a lot of people were away for Thanksgiving weekend, so I hope no one stays out of the conversation just because they were eating turkey, visiting family, etc. I do encourage you or anyone to write your own blog if you feel the urge, but also feel free to chime in here with more thoughts on the matter later if you have some. Thanks for visiting.
rated and RATED - posted to my FB page. I've gradually been shifting to local, seasonal food products over this past year. It's absurd to be paying for the carbon footprint by the fuels used to send me an apple from South America, or a peach from California, or worse -- wine from France, when I can just make my own in the basement -- just kidding a little there Kent (I'm willing to get my swill from Sonoma), but I love canning and taking advantage of the much fresher food for much lower prices at the local farmer's market has filled the pantry for another winter. And the neighbor's kale and spinach harvest this past month has been providing the entire n'hood for free. I can't recall the last time I paid for something at the grocery that didin't have a $ sign in front of it. Even gum is $1.25 now. What am I supposed to use those pennies on anymore?!
Kent, do you think the whole world would be better off if everyone everywhere bought local? I don't completely disagree with the sentiment but it can easily slide into advocacy of formal Buy MyCountry procurement, tariff walls and protectionism.
Abby, glad you liked the article. I think the best thing is to know people are being thoughtful about things and not just acting on autopilot. It certainly sounds like you're thinking things through.

Abrawang, I think it's trivially true that some things cannot be made locally, so clearly the answer is no if you wanted me to be literal. More generally, though, if you mean even just “to round numbers” I'm not sure. I tend to distrust absolutes. Sign me up for Aristotle's virtue ethics: the mean between unreasonable extremes. I think we're way out there on the unreasonable extreme of too much globalization, but that doesn't mean I'm against globalization. There are a number of ill effects that going local would take care of, including keeping people employed and limiting wasted fuel for transport. But I'm not one to say there's any great single answer, just a need to monitor causes and effects. There are some very good things that come of globalization, but I think at the point, as now, where it's gutting the US economy to save a few pennies, it ends up penny-wise and pound-foolish. Note, too, I don't think the issue is protectionism; that's just the scare spectre that people raise. I think the issue is fair trade. If I'm paying for health care and you're not, you're going to undercut me—and not for the reason markets are supposed to win. The fact that you can make a cheaper toaster by paying less for health care says nothing about your ability to make a toaster. I want to compete with you on toaster-making and I want us both to agree that people should have health care, environments should be treated well, etc. Those should be out of reach of markets, IMO. That's not an issue of nationalism, per se, but it is an issue that happens to stop at national walls if the other country by law allows or encourages lack of health care and, let's say, we don't. I perceive a desire by industry to fix this by lowering our standards instead of raising those of others, and that bothers me. So it's not an easy answer and I'm not really answering as fully as I'd like. But hopefully that gives you at least the sense that I'm not trying to push a dogma but rather trying to tweak an out-of-balance system. I have a lot more thoughts on this and related issues, but I don't want to lay them all out in a comment box. Not enough room. :)
Thanks for the detailed response Kent. I appreciate the point of health care, it could also be applied to the environment, though a carbon tax on everything regardless of country of origin gets around that. But to some extent poorer countries have to attract trade and promote exports on the basis of paying lower wages. Otherwise they'd be even more destitute.
Abrawang, I don't disagree that poor countries need to do some things to bring up their standards, but I have two things to say about that: (1) the richer countries should not be plundering their natural resources or taking advantage of their lax environmental regulations, but should help them create responsible jobs, and (2) saying we shouldn't just give up and declare failure and turn all our manufacturing over to poor countries is not the same as saying we should never do business with them. I think a lot of the existing problems has been the rush to make a quick buck at the expense of literally everything. In fact, I'd go farther and say that I think a lot of modern capitalism has reduced itself to exploiting one-time opportunities to grab unprotected assets before someone realizes they should be protected. I wish it were not so, but that's what it looks like to me. Capitalism viciously rewards a rush to market at the expense of almost all other considerations. To delay even a moment is to be a loser. And I think on the whole that has not served us well. I'm not anti-capitalism, but I do seriously think that a stakeholder model rather than a shareholder model for evaluating good business practice would help a lot, for example. And I do think strong regulation to keep the impulse to exploit in check is also important. Nor do I think that's job-killing. There's a lot of rhetoric out there that says business will be killed by reasonable legislation, but I think two things about that, too: (1) Within a nation, that's just false. Business people will not cease doing business internally within a country simply because the cost of being in a market is higher. Any cost born equally by all competitors will not be unfair to any competitor, so business will go ahead. and (2) Between countries, it's true that if you add regulations in one country and not in another, you can tip the scales in favor of a particular country with less regulation, but that's a pretty feeble argument in favor of eliminating regulation. That's more an opportunistic way of saying one must lower one's ethical standards to the least of what any country offers. I'd rather see some useful foreign policy work to intervene in or incentivize countries not willing to play fair until we're all on the same track.
Buy American a great idea -- unless you want to buy an American made TV or computer -- or almost anything else electronic. I'm afraid we are stuck -- at least for now -- with the global economy.

Actually, globalization as it was theorized was a wonderful idea -- we were told and sold the idea that nations with economic ties don't go to war with each other, and that rising wages in the third-world would be not only humanitarian, it would promote democracy.

Globalization was sold as the rising tide that lifts all boats. Ralph Nader quipped that it was the rising tide that lifts all yachts. I say it's far worse -- it's the tsunami that sinks all life rafts.

So much for another neocon politico-economic theory.
Aside from declining heavy industrial stuff (Catepillar and Mac Trucks) the best American manufactured wares these days is actually small craftsman stuff, like quality handmade things that are expensive, but durable and high value. I know people that like gun and knife collecting and the US industry in this specialty area is booming with quality metal workers, polishers, craftsmen and the like.

Small shop manufacturing gauged toward niche markets.
RW, thanks for the suggestions. My wife and I just got back from shopping at a local (non-chain) store that sells kitchen supplies, many of which seemed to be American made. We were pretty pleased about that. It was a pleasant atmosphere and fun to browse.