Replies

Not all, but many did for long time. Why?

So, are you saying we should have remained an agrarian society and protected those farmers jobs? Where would we be today had we done that?

With free trade there are winners and losers because of the unequal distribution of its benefits but, in the long run, the whole country is better off. Unskilled, low income workers are usually the hardest hit and governments cannot ignore the disruption and need to provide assistance to these people because they live in the short run.

I doubt the Mexican government is doing anything for their displaced people which is unfortunate but not surprising.

However, It seems misguided to me to avoid a policy that makes the whole nation richer because it makes some individuals poorer.

So, are you saying we should have remained an agrarian society and protected those farmers jobs? Where would we be today had we done that?

It is a false alternative. One can direct the economic changes to some extent and it is possible to preserve family farming to a significant degree. Huge agrobusiness is not the best model, for many reason (some of them being the lowering quality of food and damaging the environment). Also the industralisation can be conducted in many ways.

Preserving villages and small towns is also a matter of cultural survival.

With free trade there are winners and losers because of the unequal distribution of its benefits but, in the long run, the whole country is better off.

Really? In the long turn we all will be dead, and countries can die too! If the free market is so perfect, why do we have anti-trust laws? Isn't it because the free market will turn against free market if not restrained by the government regulations?

Why the freemarketeers call themselves conservatives if do not want to conserve anything?

However, It seems misguided to me to avoid a policy that makes the whole nation richer because it makes some individuals poorer.

Even it were the case that "makes the whole nation richer because it makes some individuals poorer" still how do you measure "richer". For example is it better if the GDP capita is much higher at the expense of morality, religion, culture, local communities and plain happiness or freedom?

Are the riches the highest value? If not what values are higher? Can you list a few?

However, It seems misguided to me to avoid a policy that makes the whole nation richer because it makes some individuals poorer.

It seems funny to you talk about a nation whose government was designed to protect individual rights,and try to twist the discussion into a discussion about enriching the collective. This is absolutely antithetical to the purposes of the United States Constitution.

It also proves the point that the free traders promote socialism, not individual rights and personal freedom. It follows that a free country whose system of government is predicated on the rights of the individual must not pursue "free trade" policies unless it is planning to do away with those rights and institute a type of collectivism . Their refrain--"we don't care what our plans do to individuals its for their own good that we put them out of business and give their means of production over to a third world collective where it can be done more cheaply."