PedroRomero

No, I don't think americans should buy anything they don't wish to buy. But I also don't think they need the government to tell them what to buy via tariffs for specific products or countries of origin. It is actually the tariffs preventing the american people from buying exactly what they decide they should buy. And yes, I do understand that if a job is sent overseas, the person who had that job does no longer have an income to buy those cheaper things. Unless he goes to a different industry or a different position. So I totally get the ingroup preference implied on wanting your country to put first the natives. I was just thinking about how the kind of policies that pretend to protect the people in your country often achieve the opposite. Just in the same sense that the "war on poverty" creates more poor people. But again, I'm open minded on this. I'm trying to figure out things myself.

This is something I'm also interested on. Yesterday I watched Trump's RNC nomination acceptance speech. It had many things which should be good for the Americans, but he also talked about Tariffs to prevent companies from outsourcing jobs abroad. Not being an expert, I'm under the impression that Tariffs, while they could help keep some jobs into the country, they could also make many other products more expensive as they need to be bought from abroad. So unless America is able to produce everything it needs via domestic industry, the consumer's income will not be too much better.

I think the manager can act on behalf of the owners. I don't see any problem on kicking out somebody out of your property, no matter what that somebody thinks is good or bad. Of course, proportional force should be used, no need to break the lady's legs just for complaining, escort her out of the premises. If it escalates too much, then a court should decide who was right.

I think the premise is wrong, you cannot equate a country to a privately owned piece of land unless you consider stolen property to be legitimate. Why does any government have a right to my land? I think Stefan makes a great point when he explains this on UPB, and with plenty of examples and analogies like the mafia bit. If you just dig a little bit you will find the fallacy on the Somalia argument. Why do you have to leave instead of the estate?