Posted on 01/16/2008 4:01:09 AM PST by LowCountryJoe
Rochester
IN the days before Tuesday’s Republican presidential primary in Michigan, Mitt Romney and John McCain battled over what the government owes to workers who lose their jobs because of the foreign competition unleashed by free trade. Their rhetoric differed — Mr. Romney said he would “fight for every single job,” while Mr. McCain said some jobs “are not coming back” — but their proposed policies were remarkably similar: educate and retrain the workers for new jobs.
All economists know that when American jobs are outsourced, Americans as a group are net winners. What we lose through lower wages is more than offset by what we gain through lower prices. In other words, the winners can more than afford to compensate the losers. Does that mean they ought to? Does it create a moral mandate for the taxpayer-subsidized retraining programs proposed by Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney?
Um, no. Even if you’ve just lost your job, there’s something fundamentally churlish about blaming the very phenomenon that’s elevated you above the subsistence level since the day you were born. If the world owes you compensation for enduring the downside of trade, what do you owe the world for enjoying the upside?
[Snip]
One way to think about that is to ask what your moral instincts tell you in analogous situations. Suppose, after years of buying shampoo at your local pharmacy, you discover you can order the same shampoo for less money on the Web. Do you have an obligation to compensate your pharmacist? If you move to a cheaper apartment, should you compensate your landlord? When you eat at McDonald’s, should you compensate the owners of the diner next door? Public policy should not be designed to advance moral instincts that we all reject every day of our lives.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
That is the legimate role of government.
That is not what is being discussed, so don't bring up a 'straw man'.
Free trade is very simple to arrive at, all a nation has to do is unilaterally remove all its tariffs and fees and allow the fee flow of goods, with reasonable safety and security checks in place.
Business always advocates government interventionism except when it directly hurts them.
So, the fact that some business profited from these trade agreements is no different then saying that some business profited from protectionism as well.
The issue is the competition between business and the broader the competition the better it is for the consumer, who is the one who should be benefiting from the competition with lower prices and more choices on the market.
Are they reducing restrictions and tariffs? Then call it free(r) trade and unclench. LOL!
They are reducing some restrictions and tariffs but they are still managing the trade itself with oversight and government management.
It is no more free trade then is government intervention in the market with its regulations and restrictions a free market.
Low, my post was definitely on message. This professor sits in a protected job while denying everyone else a even a semblance of same. If you can’t see that then you are as ignorant as your posts indicate.
Yes they are.
It is no more free trade
Excellent, add that r at the end. Free(r) trade. Better?
My point is simply that these trade agreements, however flawed, reduce barriers and lower prices, and most importantly, increase trade. Call it free trade, freer trade or managed trade; it's a much better proposition than protectionism. Unfettered free trade would be nice but you and I both know that will not happen. The fact that we empower organizations like the WTO to determine who's holding to their agreements and who isn't doesn't compromise our sovereignty. The WTO can't force us to do anything we don't want to. Congress can remove us from any of these agreements any time they choose.
There is nothing you could say or do....No mountian top high enough that you could scream from....
The American middle class is vanishing....I don’t give a god damn what stats you and your “friends” come up with.
I actually think you are evil personified. Dysinfo agents of the darkest kind.
May you burn in hell
Interesting. The several global companies I've worked for in my career have always advocated for government getting the hell out of the way in all instances.
So, the fact that some business profited from these trade agreements is no different then saying that some business profited from protectionism as well.
Except for the fact that these trade agreements have increased trade while protectionism causes trade wars and decreased trade, you're exactly right.
The issue is the competition between business and the broader the competition the better it is for the consumer, who is the one who should be benefiting from the competition with lower prices and more choices on the market.
And, once again, these trade agreements you abhor have lowered prices around the globe while giving consumers more choices. Freer trade forces companies to be more competitive and, as a result, consumers win.
So since trade is occurring you admit those both businesses in China and I gain from trade, correct?
Merchantilism, then, is production based, not consumer based. By this definition the Arab states and China are merchantile. They each are building vast reserves of capital by exporting substantially more than they import.
Their capital, however, is based on the dollar, in that their largest consumer is the US. While they can spend dollars with most other countries, eventually they must return to us for an exchange of their hoarded dollars. Thus, they end up spending the very dollars with us that we have spent with them. Is this not the essential argument for free trade?
LOL
Oh, and you might want to cut down on the caffeine.
And seeing that no one knows if this professor has tenure or not, your message is "I'm lazy, so here's an ad hominem to throw on the pile."
I agree with ya....that's why there's no point in trying to engage in dialogue as that cannot take place. Best to just to post articles which refute their propaganda.
As for saying LowCountryJoe is ignorant, I apologize for that. It was wrong to be so "rude", but I tend to get testy when I feel I am talked down to as LowCountryJoe did. If someone doesn't like what I am saying, say so but don't be condescending about it. I will listen to any reasonable argument and evaluate it fairly, but I won't be treated as less than an equal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.