First, no economist expects <i>any</i> comparative advantage to last forever. And similarly, no business expects any business model to last long. It's simply mistaken to say that some business trend -- whether selling wool to the French or whaling for oil -- is beneficial only if it lasts forever. Economics is about constant change, and economic development is path dependent. America would be a much poorer nation today had it not developed its whaling industry in previous centuries. Anyone then who had suggested it shouldn't be done because it was unsustainable would have been wrong. (Today, not needing whale oil to light your desk, you can argue it shouldn't have been done for ethical reasons. At the time, slavery loomed as much the larger issue. As nations get richer, they're able to turn ever more refined ethical lens on their economic practices.)
Second, both the advantages of offshoring manufacturing and the advantages of bringing it back can be real. Sometimes, even when it occurs <i>at the same time.</i> Because it's not all the same manufacturing, and not all the same shores. A parallel example is oil imports and exports. There are plenty of cases where an oil exporting nation, like Canada, also imports some oil. Why? Because there are different grades and types of oil, because refineries are different and don't move around, and there are different markets for the refined products.
Lastly, don't overlook the economic miracle behind your complaint. Forty years ago, any foreign aide or international development policy that promised to lift much of the impoverished world to the point where their income was this high and growing would have been viewed as next-to-impossible. Too miraculous to be thinkable. In fact, the last forty years of development policy history has been one of continual disappointment. Trade is the <i>only</i> thing that has succeeded there.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read