Death+Taxes: Not Made in USA: Even Campaign T-Shirts Get Outsourced

[harikaried]

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/127224/not-made-in-usa-even-campaign-t-shirts-get-outsourced/


Ron Paul, however, refused to apologize when asked why his campaign’s shirts came from El Salvador, “I wasn’t aware of it … but I wouldn’t change it, [because] I would argue the case that the market should determine it.”

For better or for worse, he speaks the truth.


From an unapologetic capitalist’s perspective, Ron Paul’s laissez-faire approach to his campaign’s foreign-made merchandise therefore makes perfect sense: why spend extra money on an American-made product when you can get it cheaper from El Salvador? Who cares if voters balk at your foreign trade? You’re playing the market, playing the game.

Paul’s clearly the only candidate brave enough to highlight the much-adored free market’s dark side; and, sadly, too few will see the inherent contradictions.

[sailingaway]

there are better articles on this, I had just commented on that one, though. It isn't the dark side. The 'dark' side comes from managed trade agreement cronyism reserving the benefits of trade only to the well connected. Ironically, Ron opposes NAFTA, CAFTA, the Korean trade agreement, etc, because they are bad for the country. Bachmann generally supports manged trade, it seems, but makes pc moves like buying her shirts in the US. Substance and cosmetics.

[tangent4ronpaul]

US Manufacturing Alliance: ‘Inexcusable’ to Make Campaign T-Shirts Abroad
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/08/us-manufacturing-alliance-inexcusable-to-make-campaign-t-shirts-abroad.html

ABC News reported yesterday that at least four Republican presidential candidates have had campaign T-shirts made abroad, notwithstanding near-universal promises by politicians to grow American jobs.

The candidates we found with campaign swag that wasn’t “Made in America” were Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain and Ron Paul. Gingrich and Cain called it an oversight that won’t be repeated, while Paul applauded the free market, and said he wouldn’t change a thing, while Santorum used it as a chance to blast President Obama for making it “harder and harder” to find a T-shirt made in the USA.

...

“It’s also a poll-tested slogan, ‘keep it made in America -- made in the USA,’ ” he continued. “That's a pretty inexcusable freshman campaign mistake. These types of goods are widely available. …This is a really, really simple thing to correct.”

...

“Some of the president's senior staff took some time to meet with us about our poll findings, and they were very interested. They said they were eager to move to this

[sorianofan]

I think he should use USA shirts, They did in '08.

[libertarian4321]

I think he should use USA shirts, They did in '08.

I've got a bunch of Ron Paul shirts from 2008, from a lot of sources- I can't even remember which ones came from the official campaign. Some are made in the USA, but others are not (most from Central America, surprisingly, none were made in China).

However, in this case, I agree, it might be worth spending a bit more to buy "Made in the USA."

[erowe1]

How is this the free market's dark side?

If you advocate free markets, then you know they have no dark side.

If you don't want to expose yourself to competition from other people in the world who are desperate for your job and willing to make more sacrifices than you for the privilege of doing it, then in your eyes, everything about free markets is nothing but one big dark side.

[erowe1]

I've got a bunch of Ron Paul shirts from 2008, from a lot of sources- I can't even remember which ones came from the official campaign. Some are made in the USA, but others are not (most from Central America, surprisingly, none were made in China).

However, in this case, I agree, it might be worth spending a bit more to buy "Made in the USA."

Why?

You can just spend less by buying the foreign-made stuff, and then donate the money you saved to some American labor union or something if that's where you want your money to go.

[KevinYeaux]

ABC's working very hard to make this a story. Too bad no one is really catching on.

Also, I'd point out that the price of a t-shirt from Paul and Newt (foreign made) is $18-20, while Romney, Obama, Huntsman, and Bachmann are $30-$35. And Paul's shirts aren't dumb enough to have a QR code on the back (Huntsman!).

[Romulus]

Why?

You can just spend less by buying the foreign-made stuff, and then donate the money you saved to some American labor union or something if that's where you want your money to go.

This. There are very few places to buy a good shirt made here. The places that do are Union labor so do you want your money to go there? Plus you very limited on sizes and fit styles. There are few choices for 3 or 4 times the cost!

I buy Gildan shirts, they are made in South America but they are an American company who employs US labor here to via shipping, stocking, distribution, etc etc etc.

RP is right again, free market principles apply.

ABC = fail.

[Alex540]

This really isn't a big deal to me. I guarantee you the people making an issue out of this benefit in some fashion from foreign-made goods on a daily basis.

[Thomas]

Ron might not care, but voters do and the campaign should.

[harikaried]

The same voters that don't buy Japanese or European cars? People who don't buy phones/computers/tvs assembled in China?

[specsaregood]

Ron might not care, but voters do and the campaign should.

It shouldn't be too big of a cost to offer both choices. Let the free market decide by giving supporters the opportunity to by a made in USA shirt. I usually opt for the USA version when possible.

[newbitech]

people will make excuses for themselves for why they don't buy American made goods. Only Ron Paul activists will make excuses for Ron Paul why his campaign doesn't.

To me, this is a no brainer. Ron Paul should start up a company that makes campaign t-shirts here in America and hire only people who support him to make them. Then those supporters can make them earning the minimum wage. Solves all kinds of problems.

[cheapseats]

If you advocate free markets, then you know they have no dark side.

This is FALSE.

Don't get me wrong, I DO advocate Free-As-People-Can-Be Markets.

But also make no mistake, THE HONOR SYSTEM IS INADEQUATE SAFEGUARD AGAINST THE DARK SIDE OF HUMAN NATURE.

There ARE "natural" quasi-monopolies, steeped in Scarcity or Capital Requirements, and they DO fuck with Free Markets. But Human Nature is the jet-black side.


If you don't want to expose yourself to competition from other people in the world who are desperate for your job and willing to make more sacrifices than you for the privilege of doing it, then in your eyes, everything about free markets is nothing but one big dark side.

Canned and unpersuasive.

[cheapseats]

I think he should use USA shirts...

As do I. Think, SOLIDARITY.

As to "cost benefits," which I appreciate as much as the next person hovering over a brink, the question that comes to MY mind is whether cheaper, foreign-made shirts are purchased to keep more money in Ron Paul Supporter pockets, or PUT more money in Promoters' pockets.

[NewRightLibertarian]

What a stupid non-issue. Anyone who would lose support for Dr. Paul over this is a total fool.

[Imaginos]

ABC's working very hard to make this a story. Too bad no one is really catching on.

ABC is owned by GE.
GE is one of the core contractors of the Pentagon (i.e. Military Industrial Complex) so GE is trying to stop Dr. Paul by using their propaganda outlet.
MSM as a whole is completely corrupted to the core.

[cheapseats]

What a stupid non-issue. Anyone who would lose support for Dr. Paul over this is a total fool.

I have YET to hear an issue raised against Ron Paul that is NOT dismissed as a non-issue.

[cheapseats]

people will make excuses for themselves for why they don't buy American made goods.

Yep. We vote with our WALLETS. Everything else is window dressing.



To me, this is a no brainer. Ron Paul should start up a company that makes campaign t-shirts here in America...


Better yet, enterprising Libertarians could launch MADE IN AMERICA CAMPAIGN T-SHIRT COMPANY, serving without discrimination the many many many politicians who UNDERCUT AMERICAN LABOR by granting profit-seeking liberty to Corporations WHEN LABOR IS FORBIDDEN COMPARABLE MOBILITY.

U.S. CAMPAIGN T-SHIRTS, MADE IN AMERICA = NICHE MARKET.

What are the capital requirements? IF THE PRICE IS RIGHT, sales & distribution will be relative walks in the park in a nation where The Designers campaign year-round, and The Deluded fund them.

[LibForestPaul]

people will make excuses for themselves for why they don't buy American made goods. Only Ron Paul activists will make excuses for Ron Paul why his campaign doesn't.

To me, this is a no brainer. Ron Paul should start up a company that makes campaign t-shirts here in America and hire only people who support him to make them. Then those supporters can make them earning the minimum wage. Solves all kinds of problems.

Make them in Guam or America Samoa ... made in America (territories)

[NewRightLibertarian]

I have YET to hear an issue raised against Ron Paul that is NOT dismissed as a non-issue.

That's because he's right on every main issue so they have to come up with bullshit like this.

[cheapseats]

That's because he's right on every main issue so they have to come up with bullshit like this.

Another messiah? He's wrong on NOTHING?

[cheapseats]

Make them in Guam or America Samoa ... made in America (territories)

THERE'S the spirit. Demand not that America relinquish her IMPERIALISTIC territories, rather, CAPITALIZE ON CHEAPER LABOR THEREIN.

[svobody]

Sure, you can get American made t-shirts for the same price as foreign made ones. But guess what, the quality blows unless you're willing to pay a hefty premium. He could print on American Apparel shirts, made in LA, but the quality sucks - they are not well made. Trust me, I have lots of experience with it.

[cheapseats]

Sure, you can get American made t-shirts for the same price as foreign made ones. But guess what, the quality blows unless you're willing to pay a hefty premium. He could print on American Apparel shirts, made in LA, but the quality sucks - they are not well made. Trust me, I have lots of experience with it.

Could you guess at the capital requirements for manufacturing good-quality T-shirts, stateside?

[svobody]

Could you guess at the capital requirements for manufacturing good-quality T-shirts, stateside?

It's not that nobody makes t-shirts in the US, it's just that to get the same level of quality you get from foreign made shirts, you're going to have to pay a premium (due to the higher labor costs). Which the campaign would then have to pass on to the consumer, and which of us is going to pay 25% more for a US-made campaign shirt when we can buy a third party created shirt for 25% less? Not me.

[cheapseats]

It's not that nobody makes t-shirts in the US, it's just that to get the same level of quality you get from foreign made shirts, you're going to have to pay a premium (due to the higher labor costs). Which the campaign would then have to pass on to the consumer, and which of us is going to pay 25% more for a US-made campaign shirt when we can buy a third party created shirt for 25% less? Not me.

I can WELL imagine impassioned SUPPORTERS OF CANDIDATES ponying up a premium for CAMPAIGN T-SHIRTS MADE IN AMERICA.

[Raudsarw]

The dark side of the free market is consumers getting low prices while millions of people are lifted out of poverty in developing countries because of western investment?

[erowe1]

This is FALSE.

Don't get me wrong, I DO advocate Free-As-People-Can-Be Markets.

But also make no mistake, THE HONOR SYSTEM IS INADEQUATE SAFEGUARD AGAINST THE DARK SIDE OF HUMAN NATURE.

There ARE "natural" quasi-monopolies, steeped in Scarcity or Capital Requirements, and they DO fuck with Free Markets. But Human Nature is the jet-black side.

Who said anything about the honor system.




Canned and unpersuasive.

But it's a true statement, right? You said yourself that you're for free-as-people-can-be markets.

[erowe1]

Ron might not care, but voters do and the campaign should.

No they don't, and no it shouldn't.

[erowe1]

Better yet, enterprising Libertarians could launch MADE IN AMERICA CAMPAIGN T-SHIRT COMPANY, serving without discrimination the many many many politicians who UNDERCUT AMERICAN LABOR by granting profit-seeking liberty to Corporations WHEN LABOR IS FORBIDDEN COMPARABLE MOBILITY.

Exactly. If you think this is a legitimate issue, then here's your solution. Start this company, and if you're right, you'll make a profit and everybody wins, and if you're wrong you'll go out of business and everybody other than you wins.

[Romulus]

ABC is owned by GE.
GE is one of the core contractors of the Pentagon (i.e. Military Industrial Complex) so GE is trying to stop Dr. Paul by using their propaganda outlet.
MSM as a whole is completely corrupted to the core.

I though ABC was owned by Disney? Who's Disney owned by?

[NewRightLibertarian]

Another messiah? He's wrong on NOTHING?

I never said he was wrong on nothing, you're putting words in my mouth. The main issues for me are ending the wars, ending the federal reserve & ending the drug war

[Vessol]

Lol @ the protectionists trying to run this into a story.


I though ABC was owned by Disney? Who's Disney owned by?

Other way around, General Electric owns both of them.

[erowe1]

Lol @ the protectionists trying to run this into a story.



Other way around, General Electric owns both of them.

No. GE owns NBC, Disney owns ABC.

[ProIndividual]

Just a reminder:

"In the foregoing part of this chapter I have endeavoured to show, even upon the principles of the commercial system, how unnecessary it is to lay extraordinary restraints upon the importation of goods from those countries with which the balance of trade is supposed to be disadvantageous. Nothing, however, can be more absurd than this whole doctrine of the balance of trade, upon which, not only these restraints, but almost all the other regulations of commerce are founded. When two places trade with one another, this [absurd] doctrine supposes that, if the balance be even, neither of them either loses or gains; but if it leans in any degree to one side, that one of them loses and the other gains in proportion to its declension from the exact equilibrium." (Adam Smith, 1776, book IV, ch. iii, part ii of The Wealth of Nations)


You cannot be against free trade and be simultaneously a supporter of free markets...free trade is defining component of free market capitalism. You must logically favor property rights of individuals and free trade, or statist infringement on property rights for "the good of the collective" (collectivism) and protectionism...not both. They are diametrically opposed.

Not to mention:

The 19th century economist and philosopher Frédéric Bastiat expressed the idea that trade deficits actually were a manifestation of profit, rather than a loss. He proposed as an example to suppose that he, a Frenchman, exported French wine and imported British coal, turning a profit. He supposed he was in France, and sent a cask of wine which was worth 50 francs to England. The customhouse would record an export of 50 francs. If, in England, the wine sold for 70 francs (or the pound equivalent), which he then used to buy coal, which he imported into France, and was found to be worth 90 francs in France, he would have made a profit of 40 francs. But the customhouse would say that the value of imports exceeded that of exports and was trade deficit against the ledger of France.[30]

In the above example, there is a single trader who is traveling and trading across national borders. The Frenchman owns a cask of wine worth 50 francs, and travels with it to England. France records an export of 50 francs, England an import of 50 francs.. In England, he sells his wine for 70 francs (or the pound equivalent) and buys 70 francs worth of English coal. He then leaves England for France with the 70 francs of coal, so that Enland records this as an export and France as an import. So, England has exported 20 francs more than it has imported, for a trade surplus of 20 francs. Meanwhile France imported 20 francs more than it exported, for a trade deficit of 20 francs. This is the last time the trade is recorded by either government, the entire reason why trade numbers are irrelevant in most cases to trade effects. Therefore, it's important to notice that the nation with the trade surplus (England) actually "lost money" on the trades, while the nation with the trade deficit (France) actually made all the profits. But the trade did not conclude with the importation of 70 francs of English coal by the Frenchman...he then sells it in his native France for 90 francs, without any government recording it as an import/export. This means the trader profited 40 francs overall (he turned 50 francs of wine into 90 francs), and yet his government calls it a 20 franc loss. The idea he lost money for himself, or for his nations GDP, is erroneous.



The idea trade surplus or deficit is directly tied to whether the trade is "balanced" or not, is fallacious. The trade deficit is exactly balanced by the foreign exchange surplus in the private sector. The trade surplus is exactly balanced by the foreign exchange deficit. Every product traded for currency is an investment in currency. Every trade of currency for a commodity is an investment in that commodity. There basically is no such thing as "balanced trade", because every trade is balanced by virtue of the fact they are voluntary, and because of the inverse relationship of trade and foreign exchange. Trade and foreign exchange are negatively correlated.

By reductio ad absurdum, Bastiat argued that the national trade deficit was an indicator of a successful economy, rather than a failing one. Bastiat predicted that a successful, growing economy would result in greater trade deficits, and an unsuccessful, shrinking economy would result in lower trade deficits. This was later, in the 20th century, affirmed by economist Milton Friedman.

Contrary to popular misconception, trade deficits are correlated with higher growth rates, lower unemployment, and wealthier periods. The opposite is true for trade surpluses. We should embrace trade deficits, if in fact we put any creedance in them at all.


Please read:

Statist Economic Fallacies: Breaking Through the Nonsense (Part I)

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=41436

Statist Economic Fallacies: Breaking Through the Nonsense (Part II)

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=41442

Statist Economic Fallacies: Breaking Through the Nonsense (Part III)

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=41450



Eventually I'll release Part IV of this article.



So, Ron doesn't need to change anything here...he's right, and as usual, the majority is dead wrong. He doesn't need to conform to errors.

[afwjam]

I though ABC was owned by Disney? Who's Disney owned by?

Steve Jobs I think...

[ProIndividual]

I can WELL imagine impassioned SUPPORTERS OF CANDIDATES ponying up a premium for CAMPAIGN T-SHIRTS MADE IN AMERICA.

I can well imagine people foolishly making themselves and their nation poorer by doing this too...but then again most people don't understand economics or that this makes us all poorer, especially the person buying the shirt at a premium.

Buy the foreign shirt, donate the difference between that shirt and American-made premium shirt to the campaign. Then you'll see how much saving money on goods because of free trade actually relatively makes you WEALTHIER.

Why would anyone rationally make themselves poorer, shrink consumption in total they could provide, thereby fractionally reducing GDP of their nation, for the sake of nostalgia, misplaced nationalism, and bad economic understanding?

Because most people's understanding of market economics is "They took our jerbzzzzzzzz!!!"

Please dump the nostalgia and fallacies, and promote the message of liberty and free markets, not protectionism and errroneous, if not suicidal, trade policies.

(This is directed at the sentiment, not the author necessarily.)