durable goods

my co-worker and i have been having an ongoing conversation about personal freedoms, and it has morphed into a broader-reaching conversation about politics & economics. i'm afraid the bottom line is that i may be turning into a (gasp!) Republican. with a few caveats...

North Carolina has outlawed smoking in bars and restaurants, as of January 1st. it is ironic, considering the fact that NC is the nation's largest harvester of demon tobacco, to this day. i have to interject that i'm an ex-smoker, and i don't like breathing secondhand smoke. i still view this action by the state's lawmakers as a hugely wasted opportunity, and it has served to underscore a few of my developing core beliefs.

let's take it as a given that by this point in the year 2010, that everybody who still chooses to smoke cigarettes (or other tobacco products) is aware that they are unhealthy. it says right there on the side of the pack (and has ever since before i started smoking) that one way or another, they are going to kill you. random strangers will approach you on the street and tell you the same thing, just in case you didn't take the time to read the warning, or if you cannot read. smoking is bad, m'kay?

bars and restaurants that have maintained smoking areas in the last decade have already spent a good amount of money updating their facilities to meet the state & federal standards for adequate ventilation, smoker segregation, and the like. so why not allow smoking areas to continue to exist, with the proper Permit? bars have to purchase ABC permits to sell alcohol, so why not use this opportunity to generate some revenue for our broke-ass state by requiring establishments to apply for smoking area permits if they wish to allow smoking within the walls of their privately-owned businesses? then, if people didn't want to deal with the smoky atmosphere, they could stay the hell out. smoking isn't a right guaranteed by the Constitution, but neither is a smoke-free atmosphere. see where i'm headed? it would be the personal freedom of choice whether or not to go in the smoky building. smokers would also have the freedom of choice to light up or not, knowing all the risks.

it would be easy enough to hop on that bandwagon of maximum personal freedoms - admittedly a part of the "Republican" platform. also a part of the party line is freedom of commerce in an open market. which led our discussion to the topic of NAFTA. the North American Free Trade Agreement was spearheaded by Bush I, then ratified & finalized under Clinton. it seems most Conservatives i've talked to are not fans of NAFTA, and will badmouth it as a mistake by the Democratic Party. the truth, strangely enough, is that not only did George H. W. Bush attempt to fast-track the Agreement before he left office, but it was approved in the House and Senate by majorities of Republicans. Clinton merely added language to ensure that US Partners operating in Canada & Mexico met US environmental standards, and to "protect" American workers.

so theoretically, trade is opened up across North America, and tariffs on goods moving among North American countries are greatly reduced or eliminated. this creates a "super" free-market economy. Republicans cry foul! not fair! labor costs in the second- and third-world nations are so much lower! jobs are being exported! Democrats cry foul! human rights! workers are not being treated well in these developing markets! those countries have lower or no environmental standards! American companies are moving out! illegal immigrants, who have figured out they can make a shitload of money by working in America & sending money home, become a bigger problem.

on the other hand, as part of the pretty large picture, but the demand for American products, such as Levi's and compact discs and even big-ass SUV's, is arguably bringing as many dollars to America, if not more, as we are sending out. American companies who establish or move factories to countries with lower labor costs will post larger profits, making stock shareholders more money.

and here's the most important part, to me. the ultimate freedom as an American consumer is that of choice. if i feel strongly enough one way or the other, i can choose to buy goods made in a factory across the border by a company who has exported a bunch of American jobs, or not. the fact that prices of consumer commodities are being driven down by lower-cost, generally lower quality, imported goods is the very definition of a free-market economy. we cannot simultaneously have more choice, lower prices, and still maintain a high worker standard of living in the U.S.
if we want cheap imported crap, then companies are going to source the cheap crap in China or Mexico or Pakistan, where the cost of doing business is lower. it is then up to us as consumers to choose our poison. buy higher cost, "durable goods," manufactured in the U.S.A. by our own workers, and put our money back into our own economy, or spend our hard-earned wages (those of us that still have jobs...) on cheaper products from elsewhere & sending those dollars abroad.

generally, Americans choose the latter, then complain about our jobs leaving, along with the horribly low quality of the stuff we buy "these days." i asked my co-worker, who is a remorseless WalMart shopper, how he felt about simultaneously questioning the benefit of NAFTA and buying those low-cost imported goods at WalMart. he said, "I've never really paid any attention to where the stuff I buy is made." i did not hesitate to point out the hypocrisy.

this is where my constitutional beliefs run into their first major conflict; while i believe in maximum personal freedom, including those freedoms associated with a capitalist economy - everybody should be afforded the greatest opportunity to build a legacy for themselves and their heirs. i'm just not sure Americans are capable of making the most beneficial choices. my cranky old father was fond of saying, "you can't legislate away stupidity."

i often think we've gotta at least try...