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 ...
Great, let's knock down virtually (obviously advanced weapon systems would be prohibited) all barriers to trade, unilaterally if need be, and have free markets. You'd support that, right? Or do you need reciprocity? If so, why? Barriers harm the barrier imposing country.
So even though trade is always going to be managed, less managed trade -- free(er) -- trade is worse than the more managed, less-free arangement? Do explain if this is, in fact, your position.
Not restrictions that hamper free markets.
Ties in with the previous question.
Voluntary membership by who?
By anyone who sins onto any trade deal. At any time, congress can choose to rescind legislation that created the agreement. I cannot wait for you to next argue that congress will not chose to do this. I'll then ask why the wouldn't. You'll (hopefully) answer my question and then I'll have you in a dilemma.
These 'trade agreements' which supersede U.S. domestic laws, are put on a 'fast track' so they can't be amended.
That term "fast track": do you understand what that means...I mean, do you understand the total implications of fast track? Do you also know that it was not renewed recently? Explain fast track to me, I want to check your understanding.
Did I say that the domestic hindrances should stay?
Did you really say that they should not? We'll then, let me ask you then: should domestic hindrances stay? Why wont you be equally as vocal about eliminating these hindrances as you are about curbing economic liberty?
Wait, we're weaker!? Maybe in the mind because we've become so soft on capitalism and freedom.
If we were "trading" we would become a wealthier nation. But we are a debtor nation and the illusion of wealth is increasing that debt. Therefore, we are not "trading".
Explain, then, how real net wealth (the inflation adjusted American owned assets minus American possessed liabilities) is continuing to grow! Explain this, please!!
When critical components for our war machines are made offshore, we are dependent. (Did you know that last year the president stopped legislation that required that critical components be domestically made?)
Did you read the text of the legislation. Did you see the loose definition of critical? Who sponsored and co-sponsored this bill? I don't know what these answers are but I am sure that you'll report back to me on what you find.
I'll pay $30 more for sneakers to get that strength. You apparently won't. In this way, you are a danger to my welfare and safety.
So, there you have it. Your welfare trumps my economic liberty! Thank you. I have all I need from you. Calling a hawk a handsaw doesn't make it cut wood.
And embracing a concept of fairness and welfare while badmouthing liberty and capitalism does not make one a so-called modern-day conservative.
Have you thought that far?
I do. Research the foundation for our laws agaisnt domestic monopolies. Then ask yourself if they are a bar to international monopolies.
Repost that thought. Your reply was chopped...probably due to formatting problems. It happens to me sometimes when I don’t type the “less-than””p””greater-than” signs correctly.
i wasn't familiar with the expression until I looked it up. What is more important, having true liberty or living in a place called the United States of America and watching your fellow citizens beg, clamor for, and receive more tyranny, entitlements, and protection.
I'm simply arguing with you and others to get yourselves off the dangerous track -- the clamoring track -- so that the tyranny train never reaches its final destination...or even comes close to it! I'll take the true liberty (anywhere) if this is the way your ilk is taking us.
I do.
Excellent! I'll look forward to your list of recent monopolies that developed as you claimed.
It's not. It's based on manipulation of data. Show me your numbers and I'll show you where the manipulation is.
Explain, then, how real net wealth (the inflation adjusted American owned assets minus American possessed liabilities) is continuing to grow! Explain this, please!!
Show me the deficit and expain it.
Did you read the text of the legislation. Did you see the loose definition of critical? Who sponsored and co-sponsored this bill? I don't know what these answers are but I am sure that you'll report back to me on what you find.
Yes, I did. Any component of the machines of our national defense should be produced here.
So, there you have it. Your welfare trumps my economic liberty!
Yes, there you have it. The nation's welfare trumpts your economic liberty.
Two sure signs that your intellectual opponent is grasping at straws:
1. attempting to shift his burden of proof to you, and
2. placing his words in your mouth.
I don’t even know what pottage is.
I think Ron Paul wants to legalize pottage.
Higher tariffs on imported gym shoes, for the nation's welfare!
Think about all the jobs in the pottage industry.
Even though we produce more pottage than ever, we have fewer pottage workers and are therefore dooooomed!
It is? Prove it, them.
Go to this FR link and then click the link on that post hyperlinked "full report". You may actually wish to follow that thread to save yourself some time and potential certain embarrassment.
Show me the deficit and explain it.
Which deficit? I only ask because you know-knothings tend to get the types of deficits confused.
Yes, I did. Any component of the machines of our national defense should be produced here.
Down to an individual resistor, capacitor, potentiometer? Down to the plastic circuit board? Down to the solder and flux? Down to the glass lens? If I were the president I would have vetoed that silly crap, too.
The nation's welfare trumpts your economic liberty.
This nation would suck without the liberty that we doi have. I am glad that short-sighted, easily manipulated people like you are not in position of authority...yet people like you do vote for the people that pander populism. Did Huckabee have you at hello?
You should know not to bring-up worker productivity in the pottage industry.
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.