Wait, now I'm really confused (don't hold it against me, re: edukattion defessit). Most of this article seems to suggest that this tariff was very bad for the economy.

Is http://www.selectsmart.com/DISCUSS/read.php?16,714764,714771 really the link that you intended to post?

---

"According to the economic analysis and estimation that have been done on the Harley-Davidson case, the new tariff will unambiguously prove to be a setback for the American economy."

"While the Japanese motorcycle companies are doing their best to counteract the effects of the tariff--and, thereby, to lessen the support it will give to Harley--it is still clear that in an economic sense, the new tariff is a step backwards on both the domestic and international levels."

"The Reagan administration was fully aware of the economic losses that the tariff increase would cause. It was generally recognized that the economic losses from the new tariff would outweigh the economic gains."

"A matter that further obscures the motivations for the action is that even with the tariff hike there is a good chance that Harley-Davidson will fold, and this fact also was known to the officials."

---

All their bolding, not mine. Either you didn't read the actual post or are agreeing with me in some sarcastic way that I'm not picking up.

Let's explain so there's no confusion.

HD was going to the wall.

HD lobbied the US govt to SAVE THEM.

The US govt 'saved them' by imposing tariffs.

The TARIFFS were bad for the US economy...but good for HD.

The needs of the few were met at the expense of the many.

Any US consumer who WANTED to buy an import was forced to pay MORE to protect the jobs of a bunch of people in Milwaukee whom they probably knew nothing of nor cared less about.

The protectionism was fact.....whether it was for the greater good or not was not in question, and certainly not the motive for posting whatever link was posted.

Second pass is a Britten ...

[I'm actually just keeping up to speed with vid insertion]

The iconic sound of the Harley Davidson.

countries that do not keep their resources and labour owned\provided locally no matter what the cost eventually pay for it.

Problem is there is no way to keep labour owned locally.

Really each country should have a self sustainability core of industry and resource.

This brings me back to my original question. What size territory is appropriate to be considered buying domestic? If America is the right size, does that mean that European nations should buy from all other European nations, since many of them are the size of states? Maybe America is too large. Should states all try to be self-sufficient, and not import from other states?

Why are people in America more deserving of jobs than people in China or Mexico?

They aren't... but 100% employment is impossible, unless the population is less than 10.

And what really pisses me off is when Aussie companies/utilities overlook homegrown talent to import Americans to run things, just to stuff them up and piss off back to the States with millions of Oz dollars from being grossly overpaid... not to mention the golden handshakes worth more than triple of what an average Aussie worker would see in an entire lifetime. 

Sol Truillo is one who comes to mind.... stuffed up Telstra [a once public asset owned by taxpyers] and turned it into a profit oriented business that cares nothing about its customers and has let much of its infrastructure fall largely into disrepair... then he buggers off back to the States with 30 mill plus... AND shares in the company

Good riddance Mr Truillo, I'm glad you've returned to whence you came.  So sad, though, that we have home-grown talent with 10 times your brainpower, yet those at the helm will overlook them for others just like you... shitheads with impressive resumes but little or no experience... hasbeens  who couldn't/can't make it in business back home.

We now got another one running our electricity company [another former public asset] and he's doing a fine job of putting profit ahead of people.  With 1 in 5 pensioners now living in the dark, mo-fo, I hope you're happy, cos soon we'll have nothing left to take.  $700 and upwards for a quarter of [household] electricity is fucken ridiculous.

*rant off*

Personally, I would have sent him packing without his gonads and minus any kind of handshake.... on a slow, leaky boat to China.  And as for Truillo being a dipstick, well he's far worse.  He was more interested in keeping shareholders happy with big dividends than looking after the company and/or its customers. 

While he was in charge the infrastructure fell into such a state of decay and now Telstra is battling an antiquated system it cannot hope to bring up to date within a respectable time for Oz to join the rest of the world on high speed broadband... enter the NBN.  Yup, if we had to depend on Telstra, Oz would still be in the technological dark ages for the next decade, as far as the internet goes.