What would happen if we just said  ’screw everybody’. Close the borders. Some arguie that we need the goods that are produced in other countries.  I say it is just cheap, low quality imported crap that props up our over materialistic society. If we need something, we can produce it here.  It may cost more, but we wouldn’t be sending money to countries that are hostile to us. Oil from the middle east? Screw ‘em. We may have less SUV’s but I can live with that. Maybe you have to give up your 2 hour daily commute, but did you really enjoy that? I think American industry could adapt and over come the problem.  We don’t need to depend on other countries for cheap, crappy(pun intended) produce and food. We are capable of growing it here, if American farmers would quit using techniques that are 50-100 years old.
What do we need them for?
If we redirected all that wasted ‘foreign aid’ bullshit that we piss away, it would cover a lot of R&D expenses. Of course we would lose some things- like the UN and illegal aliens. Sounds like a good start. Who’s with me?

I'll tell you (some of) what would happen:
--Hundreds of thousands, probably even millions, of people who depend on imports and exports, directly or indirectly, for their livelihood will be thrown out of work, totally ruining the economy and the charity and welfare programs at the local, state, and federal levels.  Can you say "Great Super Extra Big Depression" along with massive civil unrest?  (Don't forget this would have the same effect in other countries around the world.)
--After a loooong time the economy will begin to recover to its new level.  However, quality, quantity, variety, cost, customer service, etc. will not rise to their previous levels because of the elimination of foreign competition and foreign sources of goods.  (This happens to a smaller degree every time a tariff is raised; isolationism is just the ultimate tariff.)
--There is a problem with drug smuggling right now.  Imagine what the smuggling problem would be like if [i]everything[/i] was illegal to import!
--All foreign travel for US citizens would effectively be eliminated because US currency would be nearly worthless outside of the country and everybody would hate the US for causing a worldwide depression.
--With just a little imagination and economic understanding you could expand this list into a book or encyclopedia.


"What would happen if we just said ’screw everybody’. Close the borders."
Everybody else would say/do the same to us.

"Some arguie that we need the goods that are produced in other countries.... If we need something, we can produce it here. It may cost more..."
In some areas goods may not be produced in the US, in other areas it is cheaper (ie more economically efficient, ie uses the least economic resources) to import it.

"I say it is just cheap, low quality imported crap that props up our over materialistic society."
You're right about it being imported, but that's it.  Not all imports are low quality crap; Zeiss and HK for instance.  Also, who are you to say whether someone can or cannot buy "crap" if they want?  What are your criteria to define "crap"?  Why do you get to use the government to forcibly restructure society in your image and I don't?

"Oil from the middle east? Screw ‘em. We may have less SUV’s but I can live with that."
You're deciding what's best for other people again.  A reduced oil supply would affect the shipping industries and reduce your ability to ship or receive goods from across the country.  It would also affect other petro-chemical industries such as plastics and fertilizers.  Need I point out the problem with a reduced fertilizer supply?

"Maybe you have to give up your 2 hour daily commute, but did you really enjoy that?"
I doubt anyone enjoys a 2hr commute, but that is the wrong criteria.  If someone does have a two hour commute, it proves that they believe it is worth it.  Again, who are you to say otherwise?

"I think American industry could adapt and over come the problem."
American industry would adapt, but it would never be able to replace the billions of people around the world that got shut out from US markets.

"We don’t need to depend on other countries for cheap, crappy(pun intended) produce and food."
Isn't the US a net exporter of food?

"If we redirected all that wasted ‘foreign aid’ bullshit that we piss away, it would cover a lot of R&D expenses."
It would do even more good, isolationism or not, to redirect the money back to the people it was taken from.

"Of course we would lose some things- like the UN and illegal aliens."
This is an unnecessarily drastic method of ditching the UN, but losing it is always a plus.  Illegal aliens probably wouldn't be a problem because our economy would be worse than wherever they are coming from.  We would also lose almost all cultural contact with the rest of the world.  Travel, both to and from the US, would be limited as noted above and foreign cultural objects, such as books, videos, costumes, clothing, jewelry, etc., would be banned from import.


Just some food for thought...

Yesterday I paid over twenty dollars for a pair of elk leather gloves instead of thirteen dollars for other comparable gloves because they were the only US (not China) made in the rack.  Until we all have such convictions the problem will not be solved.  I understand this is very difficult when the products are not available from anywhere but China.  Planerench out.

The "isolationism" of the FF did not include not doing buisness with other countries. I would not support total isolationism. Its unamerican.

Ahh, my mistake.  When I saw "isolationism" in the title I thought you meant isolationism.



No, it doesn't assume that the American economy is incapable of adapting.  It is simply the understanding that adapting takes time and the destruction of no-longer-needed jobs and the understanding that a massive change like becoming isolated will take a lot of time and people out of work.  This scenario would not merely be painful, it would be crippling or disabling instead.



I was talking about smuggling, not drug policy.



See above.


It also makes them dependent on us.  If they are an ally or neutral, this is no big deal and if they are hostile, it gives them more to lose in the event of war.


Again, see above.


Yes, we can adapt.  But why?  The effort and other resources spent to find new technologies for an artificially new environment would be better spent elsewhere.  (If the resources are best spent in new technologies, the free market would push the resources into this R&D without the banning of imported oil.)


1. I'm sure it would be.  That answers the wrong question though.  The correct question is "Is the reduction in air pollution worth the economic loss caused by the lack of petroleum products?"  As a side note, indoor air pollution is a greater health threat 99% of the time.
2. We managed for quite a long time without tractors too.  Tractors, like fertilizer and pesticides, are used because they are the most economically efficient farming method available.  If we eliminated these products they would use up more resources than are released by not using them.  This means that fewer total goods would be produced and the economy will be less productive.  Is it worth it?



Comparative Advantage makes it a good deal.

For anyone that wants a good analysis of the economic myths permeating our country today, and how becoming more isolationist would help, may I suggest,

[url=https://www.amazon.com/dp/0316115185?tag=arfcom00-20]"The Great Betrayal: How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy"[/url]

I found this to be a very clear and concise explanation of our economic and political system.  If you want to understand what drives business and politics today, and how we can change that, read this book.  For example, the author debunks the myth of "Comparative Advantage", or rather corrects most people's misunderstanding of it . . .

SOUNDS LIKE A PLAN TO ME..

Are you trying to say that the economy [i]is not[/i] the country....that the country comes first?


That is basically what P. Buchannan says in his book.

How about giving us the Cliff Notes version?

David Ricardo, an 18th century economist, came up with the theory of "Comparative Advantage".  

Excerpted from:  [url]http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/decision/trade2.htm[/url] (Since I'm at work, and don't have the book to excerpt from, I found a good explanation of it here.)

[b]"This theory told us that if the Portuguese specialized in producing port wine (and olives and similar crops), and the British made woolens and other manufactured goods, then each would become richer by exchanging with the other. And this would be true, miraculously, even if the British economy were so much more advanced than the Portuguese that the Brits could theoretically produce anything more cheaply than the Portuguese did. If each specialized in the area where its "comparative advantage" was greatest, all would profit most in the long run.

"From this simple homily, and several tons worth of mathematical demonstration that followed, the international-trade regime emerged. What it told people, up through the time of the Buchanan campaign, was that the ups and downs of the international economy were BY DEFINITION good for us in the long run. If some other country was making cars or computers or even wine more cheaply than we could make it here, then every time our consumers bought from foreign producers, they were improving our national welfare. A domestically made car might cost us $10,000. If we could buy a car of the same quality for $5,000 from some other country, we'd have the car plus an extra $5,000. We'd be better off! We didn't even need to ask why the other country was willing to sell for this level. That's their problem! Willing buyers and willing sellers--each enhanced their welfare through trade.

"But as Buchanan, with his claque of think-tank and journalistic supporters, began to say, maybe there's more to the story than that. What about the people in the American car factories? Where are they going to get the money to buy cars or anything else, if their factory shuts down? And what are the foreign sellers going to do with that $5,000 USD they got for their car? If they just trade it back for their own currency, the pressure of supply and demand lowers the value of the dollar. If they want to hold it in dollars, they can use it mainly to buy assets inside the United States, gradually decreasing our future control over our own destiny. Of course, they could use those dollars to buy American products, thereby keeping our employees at work. But if the last three decades of trade experience show us anything, they show us that most other countries view that as a last resort. (Why else do we have such enormous trade deficits?)"[/b]

This kind of sums it up in a nutshell, but I really suggest you read the book by Pat Buchanan himself.  I found it hard to put down. Basically, the "law" of comparative advantage (along with pretty much all the other precepts of free trade) are based on a consumer-driven model of the economy.  They assume that if the consumer can spend less for a given product, the result is better for the collective.  I.e., if we can run to Wally World and spend less money for items manufactured in China/Hong-Kong/Taiwan/Indonesia than we would for the same items made here in the good 'ol USA, then we will all be better off because we'll have more spending money, right?  After all, they can produce these products cheaper than we can; this would be their "comparative advantage".  WRONG!  What happens is that we shift what used to be stable, moderate-to-high salaried manufacturing jobs overseas, leaving American workers high and dry.  For a short term gain to consumers (and a long term gain to wealthy, international corporations like Nike and Levi Strauss, who exploit cheaper labor costs in the third world to make a few billion more a year), we sacrifice the long term good for the average Americans.  In a nutshell, how many cheaper, imported Widgets can you buy when you and everyone in your town loses their job to cheap foreign labor?  NONE!!!  It's the eternal principle that good things are worth sacrificing for in the short term - buy American even if it's more expensive.  Pat Buchanan does a lot better job explaining it than I - read the book no matter what you think of Pat Buchanan personally; it's hard to fault his logic on this issue.

Pat Buchanan is not the first or last person in the last 200 years to make the same mistakes.

Comparative Advantage works at all levels, it is the basis of all economic activity, from individual to international.  There are no fundamental economic differences between importing goods from Japan to the US and from New York to California and from LA to San Diego and from Main St. to First St. and from the neighbor's to my house.  If you find this hard to believe, try replacing the US/foreign country pair in your last post with any of my examples and try debunking it, then apply that counter-proof to your original post.

You're in luck, there is a country that does practice isolationism so we can look to it for an example and ask them for advice.  Now we just need to figure out how to call someone in North Korea.  

Guardian's hit it on the nose. We'd wind up like North Korea because we wouldn't be able ot keep a technological edge due to the lack of vital strategic minerals like tantalum, titanium and chromium. People who were put out of jobs would get restless and the government would have to erect a police state to control the unruly protests and acts of terrorism. More than likely the Federation of states that form up the US would fragment as individual state governments decided to screw the isolationist stance and begin international trading. States without access to ocean ports would suffer the most.

Slowly we would become a shadow of our former greatness and another nation would come in and walk all over us.

Bottom line: The terrorists win.

[b] Isolationism for the U.S[/b]

Yes plaese[:D]

From:[url]http://www.bbbsilicon.org/topic158.html[/url]

WHAT IS A STRATEGIC MINERAL?

Briefly, a strategic mineral is one which the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) considers vital to national defense. FEMA currently stockpiles 13 such minerals, including cobalt, platinum, titanium and tantalum. Indispensable in small amounts for the production of heat producing machinery like jet engines and electronic capacitors, strategic minerals have attracted the attention of defense on imports of these materials. According to FEMA, the United States imports more than 50% of nine strategic minerals, and some analysts are concerned that a supply curtailment could cripple the American consumer and defense industries during a national crisis

If the U.S. had a complete "screw the rest of the world" attitude, then we would be forced to stay within our own borders because the rest of the world would not have anything to do with us. American travelers would be harrassed if they dared go into another country.
I don't know about you guys, but I don't want to be "imprisoned" within the borders of the U.S and not be able to travel the world or buy foreign made goods that I might enjoy.
You think it sucks that some of your tax money goes for foreign aid and that your SUV runs on Saudi oil? You'll find it to suck even more when you find it will cost more out of your pocket to live in isolation from the rest of the world.
Even though some countries may not like the U.S. or agree with our policies, many countries depend on the U.S. for one reason or another as the U.S. depends on them for one reason or another.
Could you imagine the chaos that would fill the world if the U.S. didn't intervene with other countries and give support to stop terrorism or hunger in that country.
We all ask ourselves why do we, the U.S. citizens have to suffer for some foreigner's problems, even if that foreigner would never lift a hand for the U.S.
It is because that is who we are and what we do and why the U.S. exists, believe it or not. We are Police Officers to the world, to serve and protect. I suppose this is because either the U.S. is the most powerful and capable to be the world protecters, or because it is a "belief" of ours, or maybe a little of both. Just like real police officers, we are often hated because of our authority and intervention. Does a police officer quit his job because some guy he is paid to protect hates his guts. No. Just like a police officer, the U.S. continues it's policy to help the rest of the world and be in good relations with other countries even if we aren't so well liked.
The main problem with this is our government gets way too caught up in foreign relations and often gives more aid to foreign countries than to the U.S. citizens. If the day comes where U.S. citizens come first, then we give support to a foreign country, then that will be a start to a better life for Americans.

[b]ArmaLiter[/b]

besides, if we said screw the world, how would I buy a tv or a vcr or almost any electronic device?  Name an american tv or dvd player or vcr or radio or steoro manufacter?  You can't, they don't exist.  Why should I be forced to buy an inferior, more expensive product (I am talking electronic equipment) just because an american company can't make an equal product?  Even the US military doesn't limit it's purchuses to American only, FN who makes the M16s, M249s, M240 and various other guns is Belgium, Beretta's are Italien, Sigs are German/Swiss (ok I don't know that one but they are definatly not from here)  Let's face it, some foriegn companies are better than others.  Colt is the symbol of American companies and they lost the contract to FN (except for the M4s, which I am confident they will lose when the patent ends) and for good reason.  FN can make them cheaper and better.  

Actually, FN, Berreta and SIG all had to establish manufacturing facilities here in order to get the contracts.

FN has a plant Columbia, SC "specializing in the production of small caliber weapons and machine guns such as M16, M240, M249, SAW, and the 49 pistol for military and law enforcement markets."

Berreta has a plant in Accokeek, MD.

Sig Arms is in Exeter, NH.

true and I knew that, but the companies themselves are not american.  a lot of japanese cars are assembled and have parts made over here, doesn't make them american

The people who work for them are just as American as you and I.

So let me rephrase myself and say that part of the agreement is that they have to asssemble the firearms here in the US with American labor.

I agree with that.  

Just trying to point out we have a global economy and that we benefit from it.  

Agreed. Economic isolation from the rest of the world would prove more harmful than than beneficial.

I understand that this weekends West Coast port lockout costs $1 billion a day. Imagine if all ports and borders were shut down.

I can't believe I actually have seen two people agree on something on AR15.com

I think the Mods should lock this thread: As proof that it is posssible.