As I stated before, I am fairly ignorant on the subject of economics. But it does seem to me that the market *rules,* regardless of the actions of government. In other words the market is a fundamental force that exists beyond the bounds of state control. I know this probably sounds silly, but it makes sense to me - I kind of think of the market as Newtonian, when government attempts to regulate the market, there will be an opposite and equal reaction by the market, whether they like it or not.
"I'm not interested in lowering my standard of living until we reach an equilibrium with the new Chinese and Indian middle classes!"
I know you already addressed this question, but it still makes sense to me that competing openly with third world costs, if it becomes universal enough, could negatively impact our standards of living.
I am not for a command economy in anyway, shape or form! Markets are fantastic but must be understood and evaluated in context. Economics is economics, the costs of choices; it isn't the freak'in 10 Commandments!
The "free traders" here seem to think that the choice is between free trade/prosperity and protecionsim/poverty; what non-sense!
Competition is one of the driving forces in a capitalist economy. Without sufficient competitive forces productivity lags and income declines. Just as when a football team which plays lesser competition meets one which plays greater competion it generally loses.
Attempting to protect arbitrarily a poor football team from competion is no more ludicrous than trying to protect a sector in the economy.
Just more obvious.