You're taking one part of my statement and using as a larger proof. That's bad logic.
Your point of view, that foreign ownership somehow bestows "goods" upon one country and "bads" upon another is an ancient and totally outdated economic viewpoint embodied in mercantilism.
The key to ownership isn't where it resides, it's what it performs.
AT&T has its headquarters in another state and employs lots of people there. My town gets no net benefit, right?
Wrong. The service that AT&T provides enables many other companies to operate in mine and many other towns. Therefore, they provide lots of jobs. Perhaps not directly related to telecommunications, but certainly in other, just as valuable fields.
As for manufactured goods, GM making cars in Korea and selling them here is a net "bad" for the US? Nope. The fact is, if doing this keeps costs down, my money is able to be spent in other areas besides spending more for a car, keeping other businesses open. In addition, the cars that GM sells need dockworkers and transportation specialists to load them and ship them. Then they need servicing. They also allow me to do my job as a travelling salesperson. So, the net benefit doesn't accrue to one side or the other.
Korea gains manufacturing jobs, and the money saved is sent into other business sectors, offsetting the "lost" jobs by creating other ones. In addition, the service or product GM provides enhances the ability of people to perform the jobs they are currently doing, and potentially creates new ones (dockworkers, who weren't needed before for loading or unloading).
I can alter this example to show the same net benefits if the car firm were Hyundai which manufactured here in the US.
Have you ever read anything by David Ricardo at all? |
