Americans: do you care if it was made in America?

After all, they have a stronger incentive to get the decision right than I do, and they have better information to make it than I do.

Thomas wrote:

After all, they have a stronger incentive to get the decision right than I do, and they have better information to make it than I do.

but what is "right"?

Separately, they may have better information but lesser/flawed decision-making abilities than you do.

All kinda lovely and romantic in theory, but doesn't seem that practical in application.

Are you trying to set up for the thread police?

Yes, but do those of us who have a different set of values than you automatically get lumped into the 'sanctimonious sneering' category?

Many imports are cheaper because there are no environmental protection or labor safety laws in the countries in which they are manufactured. As the imports usually come from multi-nationals, with much of their capital held in North America and Europe, nothing is likely to be done about it.

From my personal perspective, the main problem is clothing and shoes. In the larger sizes, you just can't rely on the size consistency of the imports. This is especially true for shoes. I always wore an 11 1/2 in shoes made in the United States or in Europe for the American trade. In import shoes, i have to take at least a 12, and often a 13. Whether it's shoes, or slacks or shirts, i have to try it on. The sizing is just not reliable. I don't know if that's because those sizes are so uncommon in the countries where they're manufactured, or if people who take smaller sizes have that trouble, too. But these days, you just can't ignore the price differences.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yes, but do those of us who have a different set of values than you automatically get lumped into the 'sanctimonious sneering' category?

Only if they assert that their buying policy is the only one that signals concern for decency.

This is the entire text of my first post:

I threw out the example of Guatemala by just picking out of the rather large available pool a nation which makes cheap goods for multinationals, and which goods are cheap because there are not environmental or work safety regulations.

shoes made in the United States or in Europe for the American trade.

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yes, but do those of us who have a different set of values than you automatically get lumped into the 'sanctimonious sneering' category?

Only if they assert that their buying policy is the only one that signals concern for decency.

Well, but nobody asserted that. You instead said that I insinuated that. I'm sure you can agree that there's a difference between those two things.

I could turn this right around and say that your and RG's opinion implies that anyone who prefers to buy American, really doesn't give a **** about helping developing countries and should re-think their position.

No, Guatemala is not a bad example, it's an excellent example, because, as you will note, i brought those points up in my original post.

You have tried mightly to claim some sort of moral parity between the United States and Guatemala, but i don't see that you've made that point.

Ronald Reagan, Enabler of Atrocities

By Robert Parry
February 6, 2011


Yet, even as the United States celebrates Reagan’s centennial birthday and lavishes praise on his supposed accomplishments, very little time has been spent reflecting on the unnecessary bloodbaths that Reagan enabled in many parts of the world.

...

Yet, Reagan’s Cold War obsessions helped unleash right-wing “death squads” and murderous militaries on the common people in many parts of the Third World, but nowhere worse than in Latin America.

In the 1970s and 1980s, as Latin American security forces were sharpening themselves into finely honed killing machines, Reagan was there as an ardent defender, making excuses for the atrocities, and sending money and equipment to make the forces even more lethal.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2011/020611.html

Reagan Administration Knew of Guatemalan Atrocities, Documents Reveal

by: PA STAFF WRITERS
march 21 2009


Upon entering office in 1981, Ronald Reagan overturned a Carter administration embargo against the military dictatorships that governed Guatemala with terror and violence. Reagan then side-stepped Congress and changed rules overseeing foreign aid and handed the dictators millions in military aid.

In December 1982, Reagan met with Efrain Ríos Montt, who had just seized power along with a junta of military officers, and described him as 'totally dedicated to democracy.' Reagan dismissed reports that his regime ruthlessly violated human rights as a 'bum rap.' Reagan continued to back successive dictators in that country.

Reagan's support for Rios and the country's subsequent dictators made human rights another casualty in his ideologically motivated Cold War against the Soviet Union, which Reagan insisted was backing the military regime's political opposition.

Over the course of the past several years, declassified documents from CIA and other US government sources revealed that Reagan's claims were lies and that the US government knew that the right-wing Guatemalan dictatorships systemically massacred political opponents. International and US sanctions against the right-wing Guatemalan dictators had been justified.

Newly declassified documents from the US State Department compiled and publicized this week by the National Security Archive gave further credence to claims that the Reagan administration understood and tried to hide the truth about the Guatemalan regime's human rights atrocities.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/reagan-administration-knew-of-guatemalan-atrocities-documents-reveal/