Replies

In other words, even if I like import tax-cuts, it's wrong if it causes a greater loss elsewhere.

That's not the issue. The claim I was responding to was that there would be more money, due to the cheaper leather goods, available in our economy. This does not take into account the losses I mentioned. It would seem to me to either be a wash or a negative, at least for a while.

90 by v. crow To: superiorslots "An example is shoe-making... ...you save money by buying shoes from someone who makes them the most efficiently out of everyone else. That extra money is a net gain that resulted from trade."

93 by PositiveCogins To: v. crow "Does the net reduction in the cost of cheaper goods really offset the net reduction in income?"

113 by WOSG To: PositiveCogins "YES! It's not just surplus money from the cheaper goods, its the opportunity for deploying capital and labor more effectively."

123 by raybbr To: WOSG; PositiveCogins "people lose their jobs so that buying power is lost... ... Perhaps it's a wash but I don't see a gain."

127 by expat_panama to raybbr "I was convinced of the big net gain by seeing the lists of jobs that were created... Please tell us what you'd be willing to accept as proof."

167 by raybbr to expat_panama "That's not the issue. The claim I was responding to was that there would be more money..."

We started with a hypothetical example to show how cutting import taxes presents a net economic gain to the economy.

You said "I don't see a gain." The way I see a gain is that I leave the hypothetical and look at how similar situations pan out in real life. That's where I see actual increased accumulated wealth on a mass scale. I'm still interested in whether or not there is anything you would ever be willing to accept as proof that a gain exists, or whether you've just simply decided that trade is bad that your objection is absolute.