At The Federalist Rachel Lu leaps to the defense of U. S. companies that outsource, arguing that it’s not immoral:
Outsourcing causes real pain. Suffering people understandably want someone to blame. But even though demagogues will periodically succeed in capturing those emotions, honest people must continue to make the case for a free and fair economy. We have to help people understand that this, far more than border walls or industrial sweetheart deals, can secure a prosperous future for our children and grandchildren.
The human equation matters. Layoffs are painful and demoralizing, and we should do what we can to help people adjust. Creative destruction has always been difficult, but our lonely, atomized society may make it especially painful for some.
There isn’t a good alternative. Outsourcing is not an injustice; neither is it a scam. It’s just a challenging feature of a changing world. If we want American workers to find dignified, meaningful work, we must dismantle our new president’s shameful campaign to demonize honest employers.
Sadly, to my eye her argument appears to be more about economic efficiency than about morality. Basically, I think it depends. An employer that outsources the work formerly performed by employees and uses the proceeds to cut prices, invest and expand operations, or pay dividends to stock holders may be acting morally. An employer that pockets the proceeds probably isn’t. Even corporate managers have responsibilities to other stakeholders, their communities, and to their country. Economic decision-making takes place within a moral framework. An employer who prefers slaves to employees because slaves can’t complain about unjust treatment is acting immorally.
I do not believe that the concept of morality applies to a rock, a flower, an apple, a tiger, an orangutan, or a company. I do believe that the purpose of corporations is to shield the stockholders from criminal more so than financial liability. If stockholders were financially protected but criminally liable for the actions of corporations, I suspect that there might be a little more scrutiny of their doings, but maybe Warren Buffett thinks he could take on El Chapo out on the rec yard.
In any case, credit backed money is immoral, but I suspect that Ms. Lu has no problem with it if like other free-traders she has a clue as to what it is. Furthermore, I would bet that she would run in horror from Adam Smith and his horrid hard money.