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 ...
“Well, that is the problem, it isn’t individuals trading it is Governments that are still pulling the strings and calling the shots.”
“What!?”
You really don’t get it. You can post your puffed up notions of capitalism all day long, but the fact remains; what we are witnessing is the sell out of America.
That's the fighting spirit...just cave in and have a meltdown. You must have been an 01xx.
I actually think you are evil personified. Dysinfo agents of the darkest kind.
You do, huh? And I think you're being a _____ who is reflecting discredit upon the Corps for being a non-hacker.
May you burn in hell
I'm shooting for purgatory, myself. But thank you for equating yourself with God, providing your final judgment and issuing your damnation on me.
May you get a spine and grow a pair, before your Eagle, Globe and Anchor get any more tarnished.
No, that’s okay. I’m up for it.
Then get on the correct side of liberty and I won't be such an overbearing jerk in my replies.
Interesting, then, that the real net wealth held by American citizens continues to rise. How does this happen if we're selling out? Also, is denying economic liberty 'not selling out'. Selling out?! I'm not buying into that. Neither should you but I guess capitalism is just too disruptive for the feint of heart and weak-kneed
I will liken it to a football game. Team A claims the football feild is only 50 yards long and that they can have 18 players on the feild. Team B has a more traditional view of things.
To say that government enforces the rules is not to say that there is no free market competition. In fact with the rules in place there is MORE competition than without them--thus helping the customer.
LIBERATARIAN ECONOMICS SUCK. People who shout about 'let the market--let the market---' I would probably say 7 out of 10 of them are liberatarians.
It is not conservative... it is just what it is--liberatarian.
When government loads down an industry with high taxes and burdensome regulations--- then open the market to outside competition that does not have to follow the above...
Who is deciding?
Consumers actually have less choice.
By the way, I am a libertarian leaning Republican (a liberal in the classical sense). The conservative label -- in its historical connotation -- is one that I refuse to wear. Does that clear things up?
Whose fault is this? There are FReepers -- supposed conservative on this very board who, when pressed, will champion for the entitlements that require the taxation and regulation. Read through these posts on this thread, for pete's sake if you think I am lying. Yet you deride the libertarians because they're too much in favor of limited government! For heaven's sake, man, get off the fence and choose a side!
The government has a role to set the table. Everyone else has the job to eat.
At this point in time people have eated and left and came back and eaten again... and have been eating off dirty plates for a very long time.
Someone needs to do the dishes and the only person that can do it is government. They are the only ones that can lower taxes and put our industries on a par with the rest of the planet...
Within the domestic market government should not run day to day operations of a company and inevitably this means some companies will go out of business just the same way as in football someone will come in last place.
But if you take the first place team and have him restricted by traditional rules, then tell him to play the opposing 18 men... that is not true competition.
It is the same thing with foreign government intervention. They do exactly what you are claiming they shouldn't.
In fact they get into day to day operations and provide direct backing of corporations that compete directly with our corporations... but then when they come here guys like Lowcountryjoe say 'let the market decide'...
If you are going to be a liberatarian about it at least be a global liberatarian.
“The Merchantile class is sales based, not manufactiuring based. It relies on low duty importation of desirable goods for resale to its clientele. Similarly it relies on exportation of locally produced goods in trade for foreign goods. N’est-ce pas?”
You can not sell something unless it gets manufactured first.
I can and do only speak for myself.
There is not an A or B choice in this matter. To think that is part of the problem!
My position is that government has a role to play. I am not anti government at all. They are there for the good and safety of the markets.
They enforce things that are clearly in the benefit of the public. This includes US companies which are part of the public too.
I am for limited government, not no government.
Government's role in creating efficient markets is paramount speaking on a macro scale, and especially in international economics.
I am not on the fence, I am the third way.
The highest form of economic freedom provides an absolute right of property ownership, fully realized freedoms of movement for labor, capital, and goods, and an absolute absence of coercion or constraint of economic liberty beyond the extent necessary for citizens to protect and maintain liberty itself. In other words, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please, and that freedom is both protected by the state and unconstrained by the state.If someone wants to discuss illegal immigration, please take it up with the authors. They might be amused, but they'll get annoyed rapidly. It's not covered by the Index.
“Ping to the best defense of free trade I’ve seen in a long time...from the NY Times no less.”
So you are willing to lose your job in order to buy things cheaper?
I went through job loss and re-education. At the end of a few years of hard work, I was making about 60% of what I had been making. I have been in that profession for 5 years and I still am under 75% of what I was making.
I am one of the best related stories I know. Most were put into training that they had no comprehension of and ended up quiting the training. They took another job that will end up lost to outsourcing.
Those who think the “free trade” is a good idea have no idea how expensive it really is.
The issue is concentrated harm vs. diffuse gain. It's an easy issue to demagogue for the anti-free-traders, and hard to defend in a sound bite. But what it amounts to, is the economic gain of the society, in the aggregate, is much greater than the economic harm to a smaller number of people spread out over the society.
But for me it's mainly about freedom. I'm in favor of it, even though, in the dynamics of a free society there will be people who have difficult times sometimes.
As some have said, it's a terrible system, but it's the best system there is.
But it is not in the same category as what I am talking about.
Comparing apples to oranges in a way.
Once the mechanisms are in place then have at it. But I am three steps prior to where along the economic chain they are referring to.
Do you understand what I am referring to when I say that I am three steps earlier in the chain?
So a higher GDP, greater overall wealth, increasing standard of living and a larger selection of goods (among other things) is a bad thing? You’re situation is unfortunate and does reflect the fact that every economic action does have costs involved. Yet the benefit overall to Americans because of free trade far outweigh those costs through the examples listed above.
I have had some seriously heated arguments with some people (you know who you are) on that very subject.
I get really steamed about such governmental intrusions and see essential liberties eroding on a daily basis.
I use the 'boiling frog' analogy and am seriously disheartened when I get blank stares from people who would trade these essential liberties for temporary 'security'.
They simply do not understand that government is like fire. A dangerous servant and a fearful master.
Or maybe, they do understand and don't care. That's even scarier.
Obviously you have not purchased carbon credits.
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.