Tom Usher wrote or added | Under cutting the American labor force was done intentionally so that there would be greater competition for the lowest pay possible while America had a surplus and rather rapidly went from that to being the biggest debtor nation. America and Americans borrowed to pay for things that they would not be able to continue affording due to the loss of jobs. The superrich made all the difference between the higher pay that was once in America and the lowest pay in the poorest nations beginning to develop. The superrich do not care that the American workers are now competing for jobs that are soon to become lower paying than in China and India and Brazil when compared to America's still overpriced cost of living. The only way out is to not buy foreign when possible. The only way to make that affordable is by insisting upon higher standards that were argued for before NAFTA. For everyone's sake, America must return to before NAFTA.
Paul doesn't see a way out. He suggests tax breaks to corporations that would produce in the US. He then though discusses how corporations could simply move entirely and not be headquartered in America thereby avoiding US taxes.
However, that does not address the idea of nationalizing the Federal Reserve. Some people like to call it recreating a sovereign currency. I prefer the term nationalize because it makes clear that the currency is the "nation-state's" currency while "sovereignty" is a lesser understood synonym for that same thing in a democratic republic.
Also, "nationalize" doesn't pussyfoot around the fact that the national currency is a shared or common currency in the leftist sense. The people on the right want to avoid admission that anti-privatization is a good thing anywhere, let alone concerning the money. They do know better though and just don't want to encourage the giving-and-sharing economy across-the-board, whereas I do.
You will notice that my suggestion to raise the standards is a kind of protectionism, but it protects the environment and workers in other nations too. That's why it is based upon unselfishness versus the greed of the plutocrats.
Higher standards is a win-win scenario. NAFTA was a lose-lose for the US and Mexico and I would argue for Canada as well.
All the so-called "free-trade" has been bad for China relative to how it could have been there. China is absolutely wrong that pollution is an inevitable consequence of industrialization. It is inevitable only for poorly designed, selfish industrialization.