Ah well, it's a funny take - but it's very simplistic and only partially true.
One point that's worth noting, in a global economy, is that purchasing is what it's about. It doesn't particularly matter where the goods originate - it's the infrastructure of merchandising that is under threat.
Look at it this way. You work in a shop and your job is under threat through poor sales. Now it doesn't matter too much where the goods you sell come from - computers from India, petrol from the Middle East, or cars from Japan - it's the selling that keeps you in your job.
Go further back up the chain. You're a haulier, or a dock-worker or you work in the oil-refining business. Your jobs are under threat because commerce has slowed down - not because of where the goods you work with come from.
You're a pump-jockey, or a vehicle mechanic or you serve food in the local diner - once again the same thing. If you work in software for computers - you don't take heed of where the hardware originated - it doesn't matter.
Spending is the important part of this equation. For example, remember that anyone who buys a PC will probably use Microsoft to run it. There you see a home-grown profit which, through taxation, will show a return on your national profit-sheet. There are many examples of this that I could list.
It's not wrong that people should find a way of restructuring their shopping-lists, countries included, and look for new home-grown products to stimulate the manufacturing industry - but it's important to look beyond nationalism to understand the purpose of public spending initiatives. For good or ill, it's money that greases the machinery of a capitalistic society.
B