Made in America

I recently read an article that compared the federal governments income in the past to the present. A major portion of it was once generated by import duties and tariffs. This is now a minor source of income for the federal government.
Now compare that to another article I read about the cost of a Harley in China. Although I can't recall the exact figures the cost for the bike, as well as the cost to license it, was astonishing.
Although I accept that we are in a global economy and I generally attempt to avoid jingoism, when it comes to China we are definitely not playing on an even field. I would feel a whole lot better if the relationship was a two way street.
If anyone has read these articles perhaps you could reference them here.

Rja,
Yes, up until the Civil War, all government revenues were paid for by taxes and tariffs on imports and about half until the 1st World War.

Steve,
I've heard of Ellen Brown from the Thom Hartmann show where she sometimes offers her latest views. Quite the thinker that lady.

Marakentz,
The savings of labor (typically 5% of product) is only one aspect of the nickel and dime act we endure. The cost of shipping back usually ends up in a wash. The major savings (according to a Bain co-worker of Romney who headed offshoring of labor) comes from avoiding environmental standards, medical benefits, pensions and safety standards. It seems we Americans have it too safe and easy for their tastes.

All the best,
Nonoise

A little OT, but here is an interesting article about insourcing. I grew up in a blue-collar town in the midwest and this made me feel good. I recently purchased one of the high-efficiency heat pump hot water heaters described in the article (made in USA).

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/12/the-insourcing-boom/309166/

Consumer demand leads, and corporations follow. On another current AudiogoN thread, a member is lamenting the fact that dealers won't sell across state lines. He wants the product for less, and who wouldn't? Corporations know this.

Consumers have an expectation (right or wrong is irrelevant) that newer versions of product A will be better, faster, smaller, more efficient, more powerful, AND lower in price than the earlier versions of the same product.

Corporations try to meet these expectations. UNTIL CONSUMER DEMAND CHANGES, CORPORATIONS WILL NOT CHANGE!

Personally, I don't think the consumer expectation is unrealistic. I think the financial burden placed on US companies by federal and state governments is bordering on counter productive.

Ironically, I think high end audio is a bit immune to this. Enthusiasts will pay outrageous amounts of money for nearly anything from feet and cables to speakers and amps. Obviously, there is enough margin in the few units sold to keep some of the "American" high end companies still in business.

Pgawan, it is a much more complex issue than consumer demand. The market sets the prices for products. Companies then make the decision to produce those products based on profitability and capital investment. (It takes money to make money). Just a few years ago, I was paying $89/month for cable but now it costs me $140/month for the same level of service. I am not happy about that at all; but I have not found a suitable, cheaper alternative. This cable outfit is making a ton of money for their investors and they reward their CEO handsomely for it. The market dictates the prices and companies must find ways to produce and make a profit. The point is, most of our mainstream products are produced by large global companies. These companies have resources the world over and the decision to invest in this country or that is based largely on profitability. What you did for me yesterday doesn't matter. Its all about what can you do for me today. Senior level management is filled with egocentric people. That is a reality. They likely, generally speaking, have failed marriages and/or fractured family lives. These same management teams also fail to maintain relationships with their direct employees that produce their products. Being egocentric, they tend to severe those relationships and move on. They cannot break those paradigms just as much as sometimes older manufacturing plants are not able to break old paradigms and move on. A good example is a certain tire plant in the midwest a couple of decades ago. It was a US owned plant. Quality was poor, productivity was poor and the plant was loosing money. The management closed the plant and sold it. They said that they had no other options. They blamed the workers for all of the issues. A foreign firm bought the plant and rehired the same workers. They invested money into the plant and it became a top producer with excellent quality and profitability. The only change was the management team. Is that the case every time? No, of course not, but it is more often than not. The relationship between senior management and their manufacturing plants is just like a marriage. Both sides have to work at it and let go of the baggage. Egocentric management teams, however, tend to fold up the game board and go home when things do not go their way. Start a new relationship in a new location and lay down their egocentric rules. It works for a while until that new plant becomes restless and tired of the onesided relationship. If you follow the news at all, you have seen this played out over and over again.
Yes, enthusiasts will pay outrageous amounts of money for nearly anything from cables to speakers and amps. There is a market for high end equipment and none of us can really guess at the motivation of the leadership of these high end US companies. Maybe they love this hobby too and they keep their manufacturing close at hand so they have more control over it and the day to day operations. Maybe they feel a sense of duty to their local community. Maybe, if they had the capital and market growth potential, they would invest in a plant overseas to generate maximum profits.