Suppose a car company wanted to move its factories to Mexico, and then ship the finished cars back to the United States for sale and claim after all it's a free market, and good for America. That is and has been OK.
Suppose a toy company wanted to out source to a Chinese subcontractor, ship the finished toys back to the United States for sale, and claim after all it's a free market, and good for America. That is and has been OK.
Suppose a shoe company wanted to produce its shoes in South East Asia and ship the shoes back to the Unites States for sale and claim after all it's a free market, and good for America. That is and has been OK.
Suppose a major bank wanted to incorporate in Bermuda to avoid taxes in the United States and claim after all it's a free market, and good for America. That is and has been OK.
Suppose that HP Printers were made in Mexico, and shipped to The United States for sale, and HP would say after all that it is a free market, and good for America. That is and has been OK.
Americans can buy shirts made in
Bangladesh and purchase almost anything we they want made in 20 different
countries, and have this justified by saying after all that it is a free market, and good for America. This is and has been OK.
All of the above is probably true and to a great extent helps the American buying public purchase a good deal of "stuff" for less money. That is and has been OK.
Now having said that, it primarily helps the "really really big companies become really really more profitable, a really really noble goal.
To illustrate the corruptible nature of our congress who have also encouraged the following travesty.
If a senior citizen or any citizen tries to buy their prescription drugs from a Canadian pharmacy, the process is somehow called a danger to the public in that there is no US regulatory oversight to the process. Certainly this must be the reason in that it would help the public reduce a portion of their health care costs. Also, how about the Medicare drug plan not allowing the government to negotiate with the drug companies for lower prices?
This couldn't be caused in any way by the pharmaceutical companies that have an extremely powerful lobbying group at work in Washington? After all, these companies are only concerned with the health and well being of our country, and its people.
And now on with my usual lament. Do you believe that the individual members of congress would allow any of this if it were covered by the local radio and television stations in their district? I think not.
On the one hand they can accept whatever benefits they get from the lobbyists without fearing a backlash created by their actions being reported by the electronic media.
I know that it is at least a little unfair to blame this on the messengers, (the media), but who else is available to share the burden of responsibility?
How about any of our broadcast networks doing a little investigative journalism for broadcast in prime time at least once in a while on any of the issues concerning our country?
LARRY KING DOES NOT COUNT!