Star, have you also noticed that Intel has become a "design and engineering shop" and fabs most of the chips they sell offshore, too... and often at companies they don't own? Is that different?

Because in the LONG RUN, the "balance of trade" for the ENTIRE WORLD can not accumulate in one place forever, any more than current can accumulate at one node in a circuit.

A trade deficit somewhere is a trade surplus somewhere else, and if you add up ALL the "somewheres and somewhere elses" for the ENTIRE WORLD, the net IS zero.

Is that better?

Or for another POSSIBLE example, if you're concerned about the US' trade "imbalance," are you also concerned about any and all "trade imbalances" between any of the states in the United States?

And Dagny told Rearden that she needed his Rearden Metal for her railroad and she'd figure out how to buy it in order to stay in business and be successful. If Rearden Metal was overpriced compared to alternatives that provided "equal value" to Dagny, she'd buy the alternative.

If a "cheap country" is selling crap, the word will get out that the products ARE "cheap"... i.e, have little actual "value" to most of the market.

If the products provide "ENOUGH" quality and performance at the lower price, the marketplace (or some part of it) will be willing to pay THAT price for THAT quality, and even the "cheap country" can succeed.

"Objectively," one of the rebuttal points is that if I'm happy with the "cheap stuff" and it "gets the job done" to MY satisfaction, the purchase I made leaves me MORE money to spend on OTHER things where I might be willing or eager to demand BETTER quality because I want better quality/performance/service/whatever from the other product or service.

If the US becomes one of the largest producers of natural gas, for example, and our technology allows us to produce it for the lowest price, does that make the VALUE of our natural gas exports lower? NO! It's the market value and performance desired by the CUSTOMER that defines "value" and defines it to themselves and nobody else!

... And if demand is growing and our costs are decreasing, WE become the "cheap country" and can make even more profit! Also better for balance of trade, if that's a goal.

And on the FAR other hand, you can draw an "economic" line around a country and try to maximize its profits by a number of means... you can do the same with a state, county or city; but the "balance of trade" if you draw the circle to enclose the entire EARTH can't stray very far from zero. (Really.)

Read Market Minder ( http://www.marketminder.com/GoogleSearch... ) or read Ken Fisher... countries that devalue their currencies are playing "beggar thy neighbor," and it always ends badly. It's a short-term cover-up for bad economic policies.

... and not at all influenced by the "value placed on it" by the buyer?

Wow.

I took a "negotiating skills" class some decades back at the suggestion of my employer at that time... I negotiated a selling price of about $900, I think, for the item in play (the whole class was paired off to negotiate one-on-one with some hidden information for each team.) The negotiated "sales" ran from something like $250 to $2500 or so... One guy on a team just wanted to "get rid of the thing." Someone on another team needed some part of the entire item in order to complete a collection.

So, who assigns "value"? Buyer? Seller? Manufacturing location???

I vote: buyer... and "value" is measured, in this case, by selling price.
Of what "value" to a free exchange purchase is the concept measuring value any other way?

Yes. And the very nature of work changes. It changed when people developed agriculture, again when we developed industrial production, and it's now changing with information. People dreamed 100 years ago that automation would allow us to have a normal early 20th century lifestyle on less work. We could, but we instead want to work quite a bit and have a much more affluent lifestyle.

Somebody has to build the robots and the robots component parts. At higher pay, therefore boosting, etc, etc.

Ok, I understand that differentiation, but please riddle me this: Are you saying that a product's value (any product's) is determined by where the product is manufactured or by the wages paid to the workers manufacturing it?

I am referring primarily to the value exchange between the producer/manufacturer and consumer. This exchange must occur in order for another value exchange - the exchange between producer/manufacturer and the employee to occur. In order for any exchange of value to work there needs to be accepting participants or for individuals to give sanction to be victimized.

What would happen if in aggregate employees refused to exchange their labor for "unfair" wages or consumers refused to purchase goods at a discount retailer? It hasn't happened yet so my rational assumption is that market participants value a low wage over no wage and value discount prices over higher prices.

yes

I'm hoping rlew will answer whether there's a problem if the cheaper alternative is a machine. If someone invents a machine that produces the same thing for less than the cost of min wage, is that removing value? It's odd if rlew thinks a machine that does work for us removes value.

You really get it. The union leadership is not really out to do best by the membership, they have their own power goals, and bedding down with politicians serves those goals. GM had plans to move facilities to China before the bail out, which was at the expense of many workers (Delphi comes to mind) and stock holders. The money GM got was used to help implement their plans in China. Obama said he saved GM, the unions said they got a good deal for the workers, and both self serving entities were lying. I will not even buy GE, they are sickeningly in bed with Obama, and moving production out of this country at the same time. They are part of the deals which put US workers out of jobs in Kentucky. Both political parties are working against a productive manufacturing base, and look more as if they seek "controlled capitalism" - you buy what we make, only that, for the price we set, and nothing else will be available. It is always about money and power, and any deal the politicians foster gives them both..

But will a sufficient number of consumers within the free market purchase said can opener? If so there is a business opportunity there for an aspiring entrepreneur, perhaps even you given your understanding of the specific need and target market. If not it is simply the desire of one consumer.