""The Samuelson paper is a strong argument from the most illustrious of neoclassical economists for a much stronger safety net for American workers," Madrick says. "The price being paid for free trade is falling on many workers, and there's little empirical doubt of that anymore. Moreover, I think the bias among free-trade advocates has skewed the empirical research in the field. Claims of finding that gains from free trade are many magnitudes larger than the losses have been based on extraordinarily poor studies that have hardly been criticized."
Moreover, elevating wages (and workers) to such prominence is precisely what Marx did.
And Samuelson. And many others. Cut the crap.
Your argument is an ad hominem support of Samuelson and an ad hominem attack on me: you simply state that you don't trust me and do trust Samuelson. I don't know why? Do you know my real name?
I don't trust you anymore than you trust me. Why should I? Who are you? What are your credentials? Nor is it simply a matter of trust. Samuelson and others support their contentions with evidence. That's how they get their stuff into prestigious journals. Where's your evidence?
And Samuelson. And many others.
You appear not to understand even the basic notions even after I explained them to you. Samuelson does not do what I said YOU do --- namely, not to count welfare properly. You simply lacking in understanding of basic notions of economics and, naturally, trying to scrap by by the second-hand renditions of other people, such as this article, the author of which does not even know what scientific method of thinking is. More importantly, if someone receives knew information that is not entirely clear, one asks questions --- at least clarifying ones. You do not. Which only underscores that you do not seek the truth, you are only interested in preserving your position.
Cut the crap.
Secondly, you clearly have not read Samuelson's article. Who gives you the right, then, to tell me what Samuelson says there -- and, moreover, in such rude form?
No, I am not offended. You just have no idea who childish and ridiculous you look: every post of yours screams that you have no clue of what you are talking about, and have never read the original literature. You compound that impression further by not paying heed to a hint I gave earlier: you know nothing about my profession, what I do, and what credentials I have. Who on earth are you to use such language? Write to me again when you learn how to conduct a civilized conversation (I know, that is not required by the Leftist -- good intentions are all that matter. It's OK that you are horrible to people --- you love mankind, that's all that matter).
What you cannot do, however, is to pretend to yourself that you are an honest person. As demonstrated in this exchange, you ran from truth and do not bother to exercise even rudimentary intellectual honesty.
The punishment of bad people is that they become more like themselves.
You remind me of my daughter when she was eleven, only she was honest even then.
Please refrain from writing to me again until you grow up.